View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Validation of the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Validation of the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale
Language: English
Authors: Morrow, Michael T., Hubbard, Julie A., Bookhout, Megan K., Grassetti, Stevie N., Docimo, Marissa A., Swift, Lauren E.
Source: Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology. Jan 2021 67(1):23-55.
Availability: Wayne State University Press. The Leonard N. Simons Building, 4809 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48201-1309. Tel: 800-978-7323; Fax: 313-577-6131; Web site: http://wsupress.wayne.edu/journals/merrill/merrillj.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 33
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Grade 5
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Test Construction, Test Validity, Peer Relationship, Victims, Bullying, Measures (Individuals), Elementary School Students, Grade 4, Grade 5, Depression (Psychology), Symptoms (Individual Disorders), Factor Analysis, Social Behavior
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Childrens Depression Inventory
ISSN: 0272-930X
Abstract: Childhood peer victimization is prevalent and harmful; thus, it is critical to carefully assess this construct. We extended an existing measure to create the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale (FPVS), which assesses multiple forms of peer victimization via self and teacher report. Participants included 1,440 fourth- and fifth-grade children (50% girls; M age = 10.1 years) and their teachers. They completed the FPVS in the fall and spring of one school year, as well as additional measures of peer victimization and psychosocial functioning. Results supported identical four-factor models for the self- and teacher-report scales. The four factors, aggregated as subscales (physical victimization, verbal victimization, social victimization, and property attacks), demonstrated internal consistency, temporal stability, and concurrent and convergent validity. The FPVS evidenced promising psychometric properties and stands out from other measures by assessing peer victimization (not bullying), including experiences of social rebuff, demonstrating temporal stability, and offering self- and teacher-report scales.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Access URL: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/mpq/vol67/iss1/2
Accession Number: EJ1295237
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFGxTZxqol30r-O0_yH66eFAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI95SCVmVb8Y-hxzDQIBEICBmheMCky-O9EfvgOt3EEbkAgyOqrNTtBJAd0FOssOgPn8aR3xET49ORgkT4OOF3fkM21zQmbIkBBPrGAwJcTid-Iy2uE2oSFA6m2DaquTO1DwcEAzz110Qs1VY9x7d1bZKKIPPaqdAbF9FC3nZGBWCai5YJukYTCFQvHj3jKmWY87nSVpZS5HC5xiyGV6YMgZpu3cnF2xR6qjzuU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0149046865;mpq01jan.21;2021Mar05.01:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0149046865-1">Development and Validation of the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale </title> <p>Childhood peer victimization is prevalent and harmful; thus, it is critical to carefully assess this construct. We extended an existing measure to create the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale (FPVS), which assesses multiple forms of peer victimization via self and teacher report. Participants included 1,440 fourth-and fifth-grade children (50% girls; M age = 10.1 years) and their teachers. They completed the FPVS in the fall and spring of one school year, as well as additional measures of peer victimization and psychosocial functioning. Results supported identical four-factor models for the self-and teacher-report scales. The four factors, aggregated as subscales (physical victimization, verbal victimization, social victimization, and property attacks), demonstrated internal consistency, temporal stability, and concurrent and convergent validity. The FPVS evidenced promising psychometric properties and stands out from other measures by assessing peer victimization (not bullying), including experiences of social rebuff, demonstrating temporal stability, and offering self-and teacher-report scales. [End Page 23]</p> <p>Countless children are victimized by peers each day. These experiences are linked to social, emotional, physical, and academic difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref2">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref3">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref4">59</reflink>]), including suicidal ideation and behavior ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref5">72</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref6">78</reflink>]). Therefore, reliable and valid tools for measuring peer victimization are necessary. In the current study, we extended an existing measure of peer victimization in elementary school and evaluated its psychometric properties. This measure is intended for research use and, with further validation, could be appropriate for use in school and clinical settings.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-2">_______</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149046865-3">Assessing Peer Victimization Multidimensionally</hd> <p>Peer victimization refers to aggression by peers ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>]), and, when it occurs repeatedly by a more powerful aggressor, it is considered bullying ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref8">61</reflink>]). Peer victimization takes different forms, occurs in different contexts, and focuses on different target characteristics. In this study, we define forms of victimization as specific aggressive actions (e.g. being hit, being called names, being excluded, or having property damaged). In terms of contexts, peer victimization can occur in face-to-face interaction or via electronic communication (cyber victimization; [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref9">77</reflink>]). Finally, the focus of peer victimization may or may not be based on targets' personal characteristics (e.g. gender, race–ethnicity, sexual orientation, or weight). Thus, peer victimization is a complex multidimensional construct.</p> <p>Nevertheless, in a detailed review of 21 peer victimization scales ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]), most conceptualize victimization unidimension-ally and yield one global score, even though several scales include items reflecting different categories of victimization (e.g. physical or verbal; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref13">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref14">68</reflink>]). Accordingly, while some existing measures may represent multiple types of peer victimization across their individual items, by aggregating them, they fail to assess peer victimization as a multidimensional construct.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-4">Existing Multidimensional Peer Victimization Measures</hd> <p>However, several multidimensional peer victimization measures have been previously developed (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref18">58</reflink>]). These scales mark important steps toward capturing children's diverse experiences of peer victimization. Even so, these scales could be improved in terms of their conceptual organization of the categories of peer victimization. Specifically, they tend to muddle different dimensions of victimization, limiting the report of certain peer victimization experiences and creating redundancy between subscales. Here, we highlight a few scales to illustrate our concerns, though a comprehensive review is beyond the scope of this article.</p> <p>Several existing scales categorize peer victimization as direct or indirect ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref21">74</reflink>]). Direct victimization includes overt physical and verbal aggression and sometimes attacks on property. Indirect victimization tends to be covert and includes aggression aimed to damage targets' social status or relations with peers ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]). Like the unidimensional model, this framework collapses different forms of peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]). It also forces different forms of victimization into either overt or covert categories, when many forms may actually occur both overtly and covertly. For example, a peer could break a child's toy directly in front of that child or indirectly when the child is not watching.</p> <p>As another example, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref25">36</reflink>] Personal Experiences Checklist (PECK) includes four empirically derived subscales (relational– verbal, cyber, physical, and cultural) that tap into different forms, contexts, and foci of peer victimization. However, certain subscales likely overlap. For instance, children could report the same experience on the cyberbullying subscale and other subscales, because most forms of peer victimization may occur face-to-face or electronically (e.g. a peer can verbally tease another child in person or online, or peers can orchestrate the exclusion of a child in person or online).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-5">Development of a New Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale</hd> <p>Given our concerns with existing multidimensional measures, we believe a cleaner organizational framework is needed. In developing a new scale, we followed [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>] suggestion to use clearly defined categories or forms of peer victimization to distinguish different types of peer victimization. We chose not to specify context or focus for two reasons. First, a measure would need many items to adequately capture form, context, and focus, and we wanted to keep our scale relatively brief. Second, by focusing solely on form, we aimed to develop items that could capture victimization across face-to-face and electronic contexts, as well as victimization that is and is not focused on various personal characteristics.</p> <p>We considered developing a scale from scratch. However, we were impressed with the foundation laid by [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref27">58</reflink>] Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale (MPVS), a 16-item self-report measure of bullying. The MPVS was initially developed with a preliminary survey of 45 items depicting various forms of peer victimization. Through factor analyses, 16 items were selected, which included four factors: physical (e.g. getting punched or kicked), verbal (e.g. being called names or swore at), social manipulation (e.g. being mistreated by friends due to other children's influence), and property attacks (e.g. having belongings stolen or broken). Notably, the MPVS is unique in the inclusion of items, as well as a separate subscale, for property attacks (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref28">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since its initial development, researchers have used the MPVS in a wide range of investigations. In fact, it was featured in a recent review evaluating its psychometric properties based on 34 published studies ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]). Across this research, the four-factor structure of the MPVS was largely supported, and the four victimization subscales evidenced acceptable internal consistency. The review documented support for the measures' concurrent validity, as well as its convergent validity by correlating with numerous health problems, academic difficulties, psychosocial challenges, and psychiatric symptoms.</p> <p>Because of the strengths of the MPVS, we decided to revise and extend it in four key ways. First, we refocused the measure to assess peer victimization rather than bullying. Second, we expanded the MPVS's coverage of socially oriented peer victimization by including social rebuff, as well as social manipulation. Third, we developed and evaluated a teacher-report scale to accompany the child self-report scale. Fourth, we assessed the temporal stability of our new scales over the course of one school year.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-6">Peer victimization</hd> <p>The MPVS was originally developed to assess bullying. We focused on the broader construct of peer victimization, which is similarly predictive of numerous maladaptive outcomes (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref32">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref33">65</reflink>]). Notably, theorists have urged researchers and prevention scientists to focus their efforts on studying and curbing peer victimization, not just bullying ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]). By broadening our scale in this way, it has the potential to yield a richer picture of children's mistreatment by peers.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-7">Social rebuff</hd> <p>In addition to social manipulation (e.g. encouraging other peers to mistreat a target), peers also victimize children through social rebuff (direct exclusion; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]). Observational studies have examined social rebuff among peers ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref39">64</reflink>]). Moreover, when [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref40">67</reflink>] assessed children's day-to-day experiences of peer victimization via daily checklist, they found support for a social rebuff factor that appeared distinct from physical and verbal victimization. In [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref41">37</reflink>], they encouraged researchers to amend the MPVS to include a social rebuff subscale.</p> <p>In fact, we added a social rebuff subscale to the MPVS and adapted it for daily use ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref42">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref43">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref44">53</reflink>]). To do so, we pulled several items from [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref45">67</reflink>] checklist and asked fifth-grade children to complete the scale for 8 days. Factor analyses supported a five-factor solution that mirrored the four factors on the original MPVS and included a separate factor for social rebuff, which evidenced acceptable internal consistency. Social rebuff occurred more frequently than social manipulation and was the second most prevalent form of victimization overall ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref46">52</reflink>]). Thus, social rebuff may reflect a unique form of peer victimization and make a useful addition to the MPVS. Nevertheless, this subscale was developed from an existing daily checklist rather than a more traditional retrospective survey.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-8">Teacher report</hd> <p>To our knowledge, the MPVS is solely a child self-report scale, which is the most common method for assessing peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref47">31</reflink>]). Self report is a sensible choice in that children are likely most aware of their own social experiences. In contrast, theorists and researchers have questioned whether teachers are equipped to report on peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]), because it often occurs with limited supervision ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref52">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref53">76</reflink>]) and students rarely report bullying to teachers ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref55">35</reflink>]). Further, existing studies reveal only modest convergence between child and teacher ratings of peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]), though convergence does increase across development ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref58">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, teachers may be able to accurately report on children's peer victimization, particularly in elementary school, for several reasons. First, peer victimization occurs in classrooms as well as unsupervised areas ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>]). Second, elementary-school students appear more likely to report peer victimization than are older students ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref61">7</reflink>]). Third, teachers may be more aware of overt than covert victimization ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]), and victimization is likely more overt in younger children. Fourth, elementary-school students are less likely to change classrooms during the school day, giving teachers more opportunity to witness peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>For these reasons, we developed a parallel teacher-report peer victimization scale to accompany our child self-report scale and evaluated its convergence with the self-report scale. We reasoned that, if a psychometrically strong teacher-report scale were available, its use would decrease shared method variance, which is a common problem when both victimization and related constructs are measured solely through self report ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref64">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref66">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-9">Longitudinal assessment</hd> <p>Notably, to date, no study has analyzed the MPVS longitudinally ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref67">37</reflink>]). Accordingly, the scale's temporal stability and predictive validity are unknown. Evidence of temporal stability is especially important for scales used to track schoolwide changes in peer victimization or assess the effectiveness of peer victimization prevention programs. Accordingly, we took an initial step toward addressing this gap by investigating the temporal stability of our measure over the course of one school year.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-10">Methods</hd> <p>This study was approved by the institutional review board of the second author's university. Participants included fourth-and fifth-grade children, as well as their teachers, who were invited to complete a series of paper– pencil measures at the beginning (September/October; Time 1 [T1]) and end (April/May; Time 2 [T2]) of one school year. Participants were part of an evaluation of a school-based bullying prevention program. However, the only T2 measure included in this study's analyses was the measure being developed for this project, which was used to assess temporal stability. All other measures used in the current analyses were from T1 and were collected before participants received the prevention program.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-11">Measure Development</hd> <p>We converted our daily peer victimization scale ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref68">52</reflink>]), which was primarily based on the MPVS ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]), to a more traditional retrospective survey called the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale (FPVS). Table 1 lists the initial items (coded A to T) organized into five proposed subscales: physical victimization (A–D), verbal victimization (E–H), social manipulation (I–L), property attacks (M–P), and social rebuff (Q–T). We included all 16 items from [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref70">58</reflink>] MPVS (A–J, L–P, and R) and added four items from [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref71">67</reflink>] daily child self-report checklist (K, Q, S, and T). We moved one item (R) from the MPVS's social</p> <p>Graph: Table 1. Preliminary items of the FPVS</p> <p>manipulation subscale to our social rebuff subscale and added one item (K) from Sandstrom and Cillessen's checklist to the social manipulation scale.</p> <p>Several revisions were made to original items. One item was edited to broaden the range of experiences captured (punched me to hit or pushed me), and another was made more precise (called me names to called me mean names). Two items were revised to make the language more developmentally appropriate for a younger sample (e.g. deliberately damaged some property of mine to damaged something of mine on purpose, or hurt me physically in some way to hurt my body in some other way). As seen in Table 1, the self-and teacher-report items differ slightly for children to report on their own experiences (e.g. A kid ignored me) and for teachers to report on their students' experiences (e.g. A kid ignored this student). Both scales instruct respondents to report the frequency of events in the past several months by using a 5-point response scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = sometimes, 4 = a lot, and 5 = a whole lot).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-12">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included fourth-and fifth-grade children (N = 1,440) in 74 classrooms in nine schools within one school district in the mid-Atlantic United States. The school district was socioeconomically diverse, with 4%–85% of children identified as low-income at each school. The schools were located in suburban or urban areas. Students' gender was 50% male and 50% female, and their racial/ethnic breakdown was 51% European American, 18% African American, 16% Latino American, 8% Asian American, 6% mixed race, and 1% not reporting. At the time of consent, children ranged in age from 8.2 to 12.5 years (M = 10.1, SD = 0.67).</p> <p>Only children with parental permission and child assent completed data collection. English and Spanish parental permission forms were sent home with approximately 1,900 children, and 1,448 forms were returned with parental permission. At T1, 101 children refused assent, 17 were absent, and 7 had withdrawn. At T2, 129 children refused assent, 11 were absent, and 37 had withdrawn. The resulting self-report dataset had 1,323 children at T1 and 1,264 at T2.</p> <p>Teachers also completed a consent form. At T1, teacher-report data were not available for 38 children because two teachers never completed measures for any children (31 children) and because we failed to collect data for 7 children due to administrative error. At T2, teacher-report data were not available for 42 children because one teacher never completed the measures (9 children), 31 children left the school between T1 and T2, and 2 children had their permission withdrawn by their parents. The resulting teacher-report dataset had 1,402 students at T1 and 1,399 at T2.</p> <p>Children who refused assent were compared to those who granted assent at T1 and T2 on demographic variables, as well as teacher-report measures. At T1, children who refused assent were more likely to be boys, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) = 17.69, p <.0001, and European American, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) = 13.56, p <.0001. At T2, children who refused assent were more likely to be boys, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) = 20.76, p <.0001, European American, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>) = 6.75, p <.01, and score higher on teacher-reported depressive symptoms, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>, 1,<reflink idref="bib397" id="ref77">397</reflink>) = 5.07, p <.05, and withdrawal, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>, 1,<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref79">216</reflink>) = 4.00, p <.05.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-13">Procedure</hd> <p>At T1 and T2, children and teachers were asked to complete the FPVS. At T1, children also completed several other measures of peer victimization, along with self-report measures of depressive and anxious symptoms, and teachers completed several other measures of children's peer victimization, as well as measures of their depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms, somatic symptoms, withdrawal, and school avoidance. A graduate student and roughly three undergraduate assistants completed 1-hour classroom visits at T1 and T2. Child self-report measures were group-administered by the graduate student in paper–pencil format; children received a folder to stand on their desks as privacy shields. The undergraduate assistants circulated to answer questions, keep children on task, and maintain privacy. In some classrooms, they worked individually with children requiring reading assistance in a private setting. During classroom visits, teachers were asked to complete online teacher-report measures about each child with parental permission. All classrooms were compensated with $100 for supplies.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-14">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149046865-15">Peer victimization</hd> <p>Children and teachers completed parallel versions of the 20-item FPVS, which has been previously referred to as the Comprehensive Scales of Traditional Peer Victimization ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref80">73</reflink>]). Children and teachers also completed the 6-item Peer Victimization Scale (PVS; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]). On the self-report scale, each item includes two opposing descriptions (e.g. Some kids are often teased by other kids versus Other kids are not teased by other kids). Children were instructed to choose the statement that best describes them and rate whether that statement is really true for me or sort of true for me. Ratings were coded 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating more frequent victimization (M = 1.78, SD = 0.79, α =.86). The PVS has evidenced satisfactory internal consistency, along with concurrent and construct validity ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref83">12</reflink>]). We adapted the PVS for teachers by replacing Some kids/Other kids in each item with This child. We revised the response options to really true and sort of true; ratings were coded 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating more frequent victimization (M = 1.26, SD = 0.45, α =.85).</p> <p>Children also completed the self-report global peer victimization item (GPVI) from the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref84">60</reflink>]). This 1-item scale asks children to report how often they have been bullied during school in the last couple of months by using a rating scale ranging from a 1 = not at all to 5 = several times a week (M = 1.65, SD = 1.09). Past research supports this item's convergence with maladaptive constructs ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref85">71</reflink>]) and its ability to differentiate victimized and nonvictimized youth (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref86">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-16">Depressive symptoms</hd> <p>Children completed the 12-item Children's Depression Inventory 2 (CDI 2) Self-Report Short Version ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref88">42</reflink>]), which has a response scale range of 1 = low level of symptom to 3 = high level of symptom (M = 1.30, SD = 0.31, α =.81). This measure is an updated version of the original short-form CDI ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]), which was found to converge strongly with the full CDI ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref90">41</reflink>]), which has been shown to have strong psychometric properties (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref91">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers completed the 10-item depression subscale of the BASC 2 Teacher Rating Scales (BASC-2 TRS; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref92">66</reflink>]), which has a response scale that ranges from 1 = never to 4 = almost always (M = 1.15, SD = 0.29, α =.85). [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref93">66</reflink>] have documented satisfactory internal consistency and test–retest reliability for this subscale. Moreover, it has converged with other validated teacher-report measures of depressive symptoms (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-17">Anxious symptoms</hd> <p>Children completed the 10-item Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children-10 (MASC-10; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref95">46</reflink>]); this measure has a response scale ranging from 0 = never true about me to 4 = often true about me (M = 2.14, SD = 0.58, α =.77). The MASC-10 correlates strongly with the full 39-item MASC ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref96">47</reflink>]) and has evidenced adequate test–retest reliability ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref97">48</reflink>]), as well as validity across diverse samples of children (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref98">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers completed the 7-item Anxiety subscale of the BASC-2 TRS ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref99">66</reflink>]). The response scale for this measure ranges from 1 = never to 4 = almost always (M = 1.18, SD = 0.35, α =.88). This subscale correlates with other teacher-report measures of anxiety (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>]) and has also evidenced adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref101">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-18">Somatic symptoms</hd> <p>Somatization was measured with the 9-item teacher-report Somatization subscale of the BASC-2 TRS, which has demonstrated adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref102">66</reflink>]). This subscale has a response scale ranging from 1 = never to 4 = almost always (M = 1.05, SD = 0.19, α =.86).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-19">Withdrawal</hd> <p>Teachers completed the 8-item withdrawal subscale of the BASC-2 TRS ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref103">66</reflink>]). This subscale has a response scale ranging from 1 = never to 4 = almost always (M = 1.44, SD = 0.44, α =.78). [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref104">66</reflink>] found this subscale to have satisfactory internal consistency and test–retest reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-20">School avoidance</hd> <p>Teachers completed the 6-item school avoidance subscale of the Teacher Rating Scale of School Adjustment ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref105">45</reflink>]), which has a response scale ranging from 1 = does not apply to 3 = certainly applies (M = 1.07, SD = 0.20, α =.78). This subscale has previously evidenced adequate internal consistency ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref106">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-21">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149046865-22">Missing Data</hd> <p>First, we inspected missing data for the FPVS. For the self-report FPVS, fewer than 5% of children (4.46%) were missing T2 data. For the teacher-report FPVS, fewer than 1% of children (0.21%) were missing T2 data. Of the children who provided FPVS data, one child skipped the property attacks items at T1. At T2, one child skipped items for three subscales (verbal victimization, social manipulation, social rebuff, property attacks items) and another skipped only the property attacks items. No teachers skipped FPVS items. Second, we examined missing data for all other T1 measures/constructs analyzed. There were no missing teacher-report data for these variables, but some self-report data were missing (0.07%–1.74% per scale) due to children skipping scales. To address missing data, we used full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML), where possible. FIML treats missing data as missing at random and yields unbiased parameter estimates and appropriate standard errors ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref107">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-23">Factor Structure</hd> <p>We began by inspecting descriptive statistics for T1 FPVS items, with attention to skewness. Using a cutoff of ±0.5 ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref108">26</reflink>]), all items on the self-and teacher-report FPVS were positively skewed. Thus, we used maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) in nearly all proceeding analyses ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref109">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in Mplus 7 ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref110">57</reflink>]) to test the factor structures of the self-and teacher-report FPVS. We started with CFA instead of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) because we had a clear a priori hypothesis about the structure of the FPVS ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>]). To reiterate, the FPVS is designed to capture five correlated yet separable types of peer victimization via self and teacher report. The initial self-and teacher-report CFA models were identical with five latent factors, each composed of four items: physical victimization (A–D), verbal victimization (E–H), social manipulation (I–L), property attacks (M–P), and social rebuff (Q–T). Correlations were included between all factors.</p> <p>Prior to testing the initial models, intraclass correlations (ICCs) were computed for T1 items to gauge the variance attributable to classroom-level differences (self:.04–.12; teacher:.02–.08). Overall, the ICCs for certain items prescribed analytical methods to account for classroom interdependence. Complex computation was used to account for classroom clustering ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref112">57</reflink>]). This procedure uses a sandwich estimator that assumes independence among cluster units (e.g. classrooms) but not among individual units (e.g. students; see [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref113">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref114">29</reflink>]). We declined to use multilevel modeling because we did not intend to model the FPVS at the classroom level. We did not control for school nesting because the sample included only nine schools, and a minimum of 30 cluster units is advised for complex computation ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref115">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>We evaluated the CFA models by inspecting model fit indices and assessing standardized factor loadings, correlations, and modification indices. For standardized loadings, we used.50 as a minimum to determine whether an item loaded adequately with a factor ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref116">30</reflink>]). For correlations, we used.80 as a maximum; we set a relatively liberal upper limit for factor correlations ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref117">11</reflink>]) because different forms of peer victimization often co-occur ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref118">52</reflink>]). Model fit was assessed with the chi-square statistic (χ<sups>2</sups>), the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Nonsignificant chi-square values, SRMR values of.08 or less, CFI values of.90 or higher, and RMSEA values of.06 or less were considered as indicating adequate-to-good model fit ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref119">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-24">Self-report CFA</hd> <p>The five-factor CFA model fit the T1 self-report data well, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref120">160</reflink>) = 454.53, p <.0001; SRMR =.03, CFI =.96, RMSEA =.04. Standardized factor loadings (ps <.001) ranged.61–.85. Standardized factor correlations (ps <.001) ranged.66–.97. Notably, two factor correlations exceeded.80 (social manipulation ↔ social rebuff [r =.97] and social manipulation ↔ property attacks [r =.81]).</p> <p>Given the extremely strong correlation between social manipulation and social rebuff, we tested a four-factor model with all eight items from these two factors loaded on a single factor labeled social victimization. This model fit the T1 self-report data adequately, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref121">164</reflink>) = 472.11, p <.0001; SRMR =.03, CFI =.95, RMSEA =.04. Standardized factor loadings (ps <.001) ranged.61–.85. Standardized factor correlations (ps <.001) ranged.67–.79. However, the model was unbalanced in that the social victimization factor included eight items, whereas the other factors included just four items. Since subscales with more related items are likely to show greater internal consistency ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref122">75</reflink>]), we decided to reduce the social victimization subscale to four items.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Final confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model representing the self-report Forms of Peer Victimization Scale (FPVS). All estimates are standardized. All loadings and correlations are statistically significant (ps <.001). t = time predicts indicator mean (p <.05). a = age predicts indicator mean (p <.05). g = gender predicts indicator mean (p <.05). r = race–ethnicity predicts indicator mean (p <.05).</p> <p>To select items, we decided in advance to include two items from the social manipulation subscale and two from the social rebuff subscale, while giving preference to items with the strongest factor loadings. We also considered modification indices, as well as the semantic similarity among items. Following these steps, we selected four items (J, K, Q, and S) to load on social victimization, resulting in a new model with four 4-item factors (Figure 1). This model fit the data well, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref123">98</reflink>) = 215.54, p <.0001; SRMR =.03, CFI =.98, RMSEA =.03. Standardized factor loadings (ps <.001) ranged.61–.86. Standardized factor correlations (ps <.001) ranged.64–.79. The items' R<sups>2</sups> values ranged.37–.74.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-25">Teacher-report CFA</hd> <p>The five-factor model fit the T1 teacher-report data well, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref124">160</reflink>) = 452.08, p <.0001; SRMR =.06, CFI =.91, RMSEA =.04. Standardized factor loadings (ps <.001) ranged.52–.94. Standardized factor correlations (ps <.001) ranged.35–.80. The.80 correlation suggested redundancy between social manipulation and social rebuff.</p> <p>We then tested a four-factor model with social manipulation and social rebuff merged into a single 8-item social victimization factor. This model did not fit well, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref125">164</reflink>) = 599.83, p <.0001; SRMR =.07, CFI =.87, RMSEA =.04. The two greatest modification indices appeared for correlations between social victimization items (I ↔ J = 108.88; Q ↔ R = 63.82), indicating that model fit could be improved by removing one item from each pair.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Final confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model representing the teacher-report Forms of Peer Victimization Scale (FPVS). All estimates are standardized. All loadings and correlations are statistically significant (ps <.001). t = time predicts indicator mean (p <.05). a = age predicts indicator mean (p <.05). g = gender predicts indicator mean (p <.05). r = race–ethnicity predicts indicator mean (p <.05).</p> <p>We then tested a four-factor model with four items per factor. Four social victimization items were selected by using the same criteria applied earlier for the self-report model. Following these criteria, we retained the same items (J, K, Q, and S) included in the final self-report model (Figure 2). This teacher-report model fit the data well, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref126">98</reflink>) = 264.30, p <.0001; SRMR =.06, CFI =.94, RMSEA =.04. Standardized factor loadings (ps <.001) ranged.56–.94. Standardized factor correlations (ps <.001) ranged.40–.73. The items' R<sups>2</sups> values ranged.32–.88. Remaining analyses are based on these two models (Figures 1 and 2).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-26">Longitudinal Invariance</hd> <p>We attempted to test the temporal invariance of the FPVS by testing longitudinal multiple-group CFA models ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref127">11</reflink>]) in Mplus 7. Specifically, we hoped to test the equality of form, factor means, and factor loadings across time points. In doing so, we planned to use complex estimation to account for classroom nesting ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref128">4</reflink>]; Guimond et al. 2018) and MLR to account for the skewness of the observed items ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref129">34</reflink>]). However, these tests were not feasible in that a necessary MPlus command (specifying the estimation of a covariance structure model; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref130">57</reflink>]) was not possible by using complex estimation or MLR. Given the importance of accounting for classroom clustering and skewness, we used an alternate approach.</p> <p>We assessed the longitudinal invariance of the FPVS's factor structure by testing the final CFA model by using the T2 self-and teacher-report data. The model fit the T2 self-report data well, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref131">98</reflink>) = 201.74, p <.0001; SRMR =.03, CFI =.98, RMSEA =.03, along with the T2 teacher-report data, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref132">98</reflink>) = 300.17, p <.0001; SRMR =.05, CFI =.95, RMSEA =.04. For both models, standardized factor loadings and correlations were statistically significant (ps <.001), with all loadings greater than.40 and all correlations less than.80. Accordingly, the final model fit the self and teacher FPVS relatively well at T1 (see results under the Factor Structure section) and at T2, which provides some support for the longitudinal invariance of the scale's form.</p> <p>To examine the equality of the factor and indicator means across time, we tested MIMIC (multiple indicators multiple causes) models ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref133">55</reflink>]). First, we tested the final self and teacher CFA models with time (dummy coded as T1 = 0 and T2 = 1) as a predictor of the four factor means by using complex estimation and MLR. Second, we tested the final self and teacher CFA models with time as a predictor of the 16 indicators by using complex estimation and MLR. We were unable to test a single model with time as a predictor of factor and indicator means because the model was not identified because the number of free parameters exceeded the number of clusters (classrooms).</p> <p>For the self-report models, time predicted social victimization (–.05, p <.01) such that children reported more frequent social victimization at T1 than T2. In addition, time negatively predicted three of 16 indicators (see Figure 2). Children reported higher levels of victimization for each of these items at T1 versus T2. For the teacher-report models, time predicted verbal victimization (.08, p <.001), social victimization (.06, p <.01), and property attacks (.08, p <.05). Teachers reported significantly more frequent victimization at T2 than T1. Time also positively predicted seven of 16 indicators (see Figure 2). Teachers reported higher levels of victimization for each of these items at T2 than T1.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-27">Demographic Invariance</hd> <p>Like our longitudinal invariance analyses, multigroup modeling for demographic variables (age, gender, and race–ethnicity) was not feasible using complex estimation and MLR. Accordingly, we tested two MIMIC models at T1 for each demographic variable. In the first model, the final CFA model was tested with the demographic variable specified as a predictor of the factor means, whereas, in the second model, the demographic variable was entered as a predictor of the factor indicators. Both models were assessed by using complex estimation and MLR. Again, it was necessary to test separate models (rather than one model with the demographic variable predicting factor and indicator means) because the combined model was not identified because the number of free parameters exceeded the number of clusters (classrooms).</p> <p>For the self-report model, age (years) negatively predicted social victimization (–.11, p <.01), indicating that older children reported less frequent social victimization. Age also negatively predicted five of 16 indicators (see Figure 2). Gender (dummy coded as girls = 0 and boys = 1) positively predicted physical victimization (.11, p <.001) and property attacks (.08, p <.05), indicating that boys reported more frequent experiences of these forms of victimization. Gender also positively predicted eight of 16 indicators (see Figure 2). Race–ethnicity (dummy coded as White = 0 and all other races–ethnicities = 1) positively predicted physical victimization (.08, p <.05), verbal victimization (.14, p <.001), and property attacks (.09, p <.01). Thus, non-White children reported more frequent experiences of these forms of victimization. Race–ethnicity also positively predicted 11 of 16 indicators (see Figure 2).</p> <p>For the teacher-report model, age positively predicted verbal victimization (.10, p <.05) and social victimization (.06, p <.05), indicating that teachers reported more frequent verbal and social victimization for older children. Age also positively predicted seven of 16 indicators (see Figure 2). Gender positively predicted physical victimization (.16, p <.001), verbal victimization (.11, p <.001), and property attacks (.07, p <.01). Thus, teachers reported more frequent experiences of these forms of victimization for boys. Gender also positively predicted 12 of 16 indicators (see Figure 2). Race–ethnicity positively predicted physical victimization (.08, p <.001), verbal victimization (.17, p <.001), and social victimization (.04, p <.05). Accordingly, teachers reported more frequent experiences of these forms of victimization for non-White children. Race–ethnicity also positively predicted 13 of 16 indicators (see Figure 2).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-28">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>For the remaining analyses, we aggregated each factor's items to yield sub-scale and total scores for the self-and teacher-report FPVS. While we could have used latent variables in our proceeding analyses, we used aggregates because the FPVS is ultimately intended for use in schools and clinical settings, where latent analysis is often not feasible. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the T1 FPVS. Internal consistency was satisfactory for self-report subscales (α =.81–.88), teacher-report subscales (α =.80–.92), and total scores (self: α =.93; teacher: α =.91). All subscales were positively skewed (self = 1.63–2.94; teacher = 3.16–7.69), as were both total scores (self = 2.03; teacher = 3.88).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-29">Correlational Analyses</hd> <p>Table 2 includes standardized correlations among T1 subscales computed with MLR and complex computation. The self-report subscales all moderately positively correlated (.54–.67, ps <.001) and strongly positively correlated with the self-report total score (.84–.89, ps <.001). The teacher-report subscales were also positively correlated; however, there was greater variability in their magnitudes (.10–.69, ps <.001) relative to correlations among the self-report subscales. Teacher-report social victimization and property attacks evidenced the weakest correlation, whereas teacher-report physical and verbal victimization displayed the strongest. The teacher-report subscales were moderately to strongly positively correlated with the teacher-report total score (.60–.91, ps <.001). Verbal and social victimization demonstrated the strongest correlations with the total scores for the self-and teacher-report scales.</p> <p>The self-and teacher-report subscales were all positively correlated, with one exception: The correlation between self-report physical victimization and teacher-report property attacks was nonsignificant. The remaining cross-informant correlations were modest in magnitude (.07–.29, ps <.05). Though statistically significant, cross-informant subscale correlations for the same constructs were notably low for physical victimization (.15) and property attacks (.10). Across constructs, self-report physical victimization correlated most strongly with teacher-report verbal victimization (.21), as did self-report property attacks (.22). Finally, the correlation</p> <p>Graph: Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the FPVS</p> <p>between the self-and teacher-report total victimization scores was modest (.27, p <.001).</p> <p>As another check of temporal stability, we computed correlations for subscales and total scores at T1 and T2 by using MLR and complex computation. All standardized correlations were positive and moderate for self report (physical victimization r =.47; verbal victimization r =.54; social victimization r =.54; property attacks r =.43; and total peer victimization r =.60; ps <.001) and modest to moderate for teacher report (physical victimization r =.39; verbal victimization r =.57; social victimization r =.49; property attacks r =.22; and total peer victimization r =.53; ps <.001). Overall, the FPVS subscales evidence modest to moderate stability across one school year.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-30">Concurrent Validity</hd> <p>We computed standardized correlations between the FPVS and other measures of peer victimization at T1 by using MLR with complex computation (Table 3). The self-report FPVS total score correlated moderately with the self-report PVS (.55, p <.001) and GPVI (.63, p <.001). The self-report FPVS subscales correlated moderately with the self-report PVS (.40–.57, ps <.001) and GPVI (.44–.66, ps <.001). The self-report FPVS total score and subscales also correlated modestly with the teacher-report PVS (.24–.33, ps <.001).</p> <p>The teacher-report FPVS total score correlated strongly with teacher-report PVS (.71, p <.001). The teacher-report FPVS subscales correlated moderately to strongly with the teacher-report PVS (.35–.73, p <.001), with the strongest correlation for verbal victimization (.73). The teacher-report FPVS total score correlated modestly with the self-report PVS (.25, p <.001) and GPVI (.20, p <.001). The teacher-report FPVS total score and subscales also correlated modestly with the self-report PVS (.14–.25, ps <.001) and GPVI (.08–.21, ps <.01).</p> <p>Next, we examined the relative relations of the FPVS subscales with the other measures of peer victimization by testing two models (self or teacher FPVS). In both models, all other measures of peer victimization (self PVS, self GPVI, and teacher PVS) were specified as dependent variables. The FPVS subscales (self or teacher) were entered as simultaneous predictors, along with three demographic variables (age, gender, and race–ethnicity). The self-and teacher-report subscales could not be included simultaneously because this model was not identified by using complex estimation. The self-report subscales positively predicted each victimization measure: self PVS (.18–.28, ps <.001), self GPVI (.30–.49, ps <.001), and teacher</p> <p>Graph: Table 3. Correlations for evaluation of concurrent and convergent validity</p> <p>PVS (.08–.12, ps <.05). The teacher-report subscales positively predicted the teacher PVS (.35–.72, ps <.001). Teacher-report physical victimization also positively predicted the teacher PVS (.08, p <.05).</p> <p>We tested one additional model with the FPVS total scores (self and teacher) as simultaneous predictors of the three other victimization measures while controlling for the three demographic variables. The self-report FPVS total score positively predicted all three measures: self PVS (.27, p <.001), self GPVI (.47, p <.001), and teacher PVS (.13, p <.001). The teacher-report FPVS total score predicted only the teacher PVS (.70, p <.001).</p> <p>Further, we compared the frequency distributions of the FPVS total scores with the other measures of peer victimization. We converted all scales to z-scores and examined the percentages of scores falling across different standard deviation intervals. We were particularly interested in the frequencies falling above 1 SD insofar as it is important to identify children experiencing severe peer victimization. All scales were positively skewed: self-report FPVS total score (2.03), PVS (0.88), and GPVI (1.88); teacher-report FPVS total score (3.88) and PVS (1.91). Moreover, a majority of scores (56.90%–77.00%) fell between –1 SD and the means of all scales.</p> <p>The self-report scales showed relatively similar percentages of scores falling between their means and 1 SD (20.71%–25.90%), with the FPVS showing the smallest percentage. The FPVS also had the smallest percentage of scores (13.46%) above 1 SD. The PVS had the greatest percentage of scores (17.20%) above 1 SD, followed by the GPVI (14.00%). The teacher-report scales also had a relatively similar percentage of scores between their means and 1 SD: FPVS (12.80%) and PVS (15.50%). The PVS had a greater percentage of scores (15.00%) above 1 SD compared to the FPVS (10.10%). Accordingly, the self-and teacher-report FPVS identified the smallest percentages of children in the upper extremes of peer victimization, relative to the alternate measures of peer victimization examined.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-31">Convergent Validity</hd> <p>We computed standardized correlations of the FPVS total scores and sub-scales with multiple constructs theoretically and empirically linked to peer victimization (depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms, somatic symptoms, withdrawal, and school avoidance; Table 3) by using MLR with complex computation. The self-report FPVS total score correlated moderately with self-reported anxious symptoms (.39, p <.001) and depressive symptoms (.47, p <.001). The self-report subscales correlated modestly to moderately with self-reported anxious symptoms (.26–.38, ps <.001) and depressive symptoms (.34–.45, ps <.001). Social victimization evidenced the strongest correlations with anxious symptoms (.38) and depressive symptoms (.45). The self-report FPVS total score and four subscales correlated modestly with the teacher-reported psychosocial variables (.09–.28, ps <.01), with the exception of one nonsignificant correlation between self-reported physical victimization and teacher-reported anxious symptoms.</p> <p>The teacher-report FPVS total score correlated modestly to moderately with the teacher-reported psychosocial variables (.21–.57, ps <.001). The strongest correlations appeared for teacher-reported depressive symptoms (.57). The teacher-report FPVS subscales correlated modestly to moderately with the teacher-reported psychosocial variables (.10–.60, ps <.01), with the exception of one nonsignificant correlation between property attacks and somatic symptoms. Verbal victimization consistently evidenced the strongest correlations with each of the teacher-reported psychosocial variables (.24–.60). Moreover, the teacher-report FPVS total score and two subscales (verbal and social victimization) correlated modestly with self-reported anxious symptoms (.08–.11, ps <.05) and depressive symptoms (.14–.15, ps <.001).</p> <p>Next, we assessed the relative relations of the FPVS subscales with the other constructs. We tested separate self-and teacher-report models with the four subscales specified as simultaneous predictors of all self-report constructs (anxiety and depressive symptoms) or teacher-report constructs (anxiety, depressive symptoms, withdrawal, somatic symptoms, and school avoidance). Three demographic variables (age, gender, and race– ethnicity) were covariates. These models were tested by using MLR and complex estimation. One combined self-and teacher-report model could not be tested because of nonidentification with complex estimation.</p> <p>The self-report subscales all positively predicted self-report anxiety (.14–.23, ps <.001) and self-report depressive symptoms (.28–.36, ps <.001). The variability was greater for the teacher-report subscales. All teacher-report subscales predicted teacher-report depressive symptoms (.16–.56, ps <.05). Teacher-report physical victimization also predicted teacher-report school avoidance (.15, p <.05), and teacher-report verbal victimization predicted teacher-report withdrawal (.08, p <.05), as did teacher-report social victimization (.13, p <.001).</p> <p>Finally, while controlling for alternate measures of peer victimization, we examined whether the FPVS total scores predicted other constructs. Using MLR with complex estimation, we tested two separate self-and teacher-report models. The self-report model included anxiety and depressive symptoms as dependent variables, along with three simultaneous predictors (FPVS total score, PVS, and GPVI) and three demographic covariates (age, gender, and race–ethnicity). Anxiety was positively predicted by all three measures: FPVS (.24, p <.001), PVS (.10, p <.01), and GPVI (.16, p <.001). The depressive symptoms construct was also positively predicted by all three measures: FPVS (.37, p <.001), PVS (.28, p <.001), and GPVI (.26, p <.001). Self-report FPVS was the strongest relative predictor of self-report anxiety and depressive symptoms.</p> <p>The teacher-report model included anxiety, depressive symptoms, somatic symptoms, withdrawal, and school avoidance as dependent variables, along with two predictors (FPVS total score and PVS) and the three demographic covariates. Both teacher-report scales positively predicted depressive symptoms (FPVS:.49, p <.001; PVS:.35, p <.001) and withdrawal (FPVS:.09, p <.01; PVS:.27, p <.001). FPVS also predicted school avoidance (.15, p <.05).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-32">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we extended an existing peer victimization measure (MPVS; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref134">58</reflink>]) to create the FPVS, which we evaluated by using longitudinal data from a large racially diverse sample of fourth-and fifth-grade children. Results provide generally promising psychometric support for the FPVS. It is important to recognize that all inferential analyses were conducted by using complex computation to account for classroom interdependence. Moreover, we made an effort to control for several demographic characteristics (age, gender, and race–ethnicity) in many analyses. Overall, the FPVS stood out from existing multidimensional peer victimization scales in several noteworthy ways, which we discuss in turn next.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-33">Peer Victimization</hd> <p>In line with recent arguments by prevention scientists ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref135">23</reflink>]), we designed the FPVS to assess peer victimization, rather than bullying, in order to yield a broader picture of children's mistreatment by peers. The current findings provide support for the FPVS in achieving its purpose of measuring peer victimization in several ways.</p> <p>First, the FPVS converged with several other measures of peer victimization. The FPVS total scores and subscales correlated positively with the alternate measures of peer victimization both within and across informants. Moreover, when included as simultaneous predictors, the self-report FPVS subscales correlated with all alternate measures of peer victimization, and the teacher-report FPVS subscales all correlated with the alternate teacher-report victimization measure.</p> <p>Second, the FPVS correlated with numerous psychosocial constructs associated with peer victimization. With just a few exceptions, the self-and teacher-report FPVS scales evidenced nearly identical patterns of correlations with these constructs. Additionally, when evaluated as simultaneous predictors, each self-report FPVS subscale correlated with self-report anxiety and depressive symptoms. As simultaneous predictors, the teacher-report FPVS subscales each correlated with teacher-report depressive symptoms. Thus, the FPVS subscales appear to be robust predictors of children's internalizing symptoms. Further, the FPVS total scores maintained their relations with several constructs (e.g. anxiety, depressive symptoms, withdrawal, and school avoidance) while controlling for other victimization measures.</p> <p>Moreover, the frequency distributions of the self-and teacher-report FPVS total scores were relatively similar to the distributions of the alternate victimization measures. Notably, both FPVS scales identified smaller percentages of children in the upper range of peer victimization (beyond 1 SD), relative to the alternate measures. Thus, the FPVS might be more conservative than other measures in terms of classifying children in the upper range of peer victimization, perhaps because it captures a wider view of children's peer victimization experiences by assessing several forms of victimization (property attacks and social rebuff) that many existing measures overlook (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref136">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref137">36</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-34">Social Victimization</hd> <p>Social victimization (social rebuff and social manipulation) was the most frequent type of peer victimization reported by children on the self-report FPVS, which diverges with past studies suggesting that verbal victimization is most prevalent ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref138">52</reflink>]). In the initial validation study of the MPVS ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref139">58</reflink>]), verbal victimization was reported as nearly twice as frequently as every other type of peer victimization, including social manipulation. By adding the social rebuff items to the FPVS, we have likely captured some very common social victimization experiences overlooked by the MPVS and other measures. The FPVS social victimization subscales also consistently converged with the other measures of peer victimization and correlated with various psychosocial constructs associated with peer victimization.</p> <p>In light of these findings, we urge peer victimization researchers to assess social victimization more broadly by including items capturing social manipulation and social rebuff. However, we suggest cautiously considering Joseph and Stockton's (2018) recommendation to augment multidimensional peer victimization scales, such as the MPVS ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref140">58</reflink>]), by adding a separate subscale for social rebuff. Based on our own research across several studies, we qualify their suggestion in the following way. For daily measurement, it appears appropriate to assess social rebuff as a separate form of peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref141">51</reflink>]). However, for more traditional retrospective surveys, the current findings indicate adding social rebuff items to broaden social victimization subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-35">Teacher Report</hd> <p>The FPVS teacher-report scale demonstrated promising psychometric properties. The teacher-report total score and subscales correlated with the alternate victimization measures included in this study, along with nearly all indices of psychosocial adjustment assessed. Moreover, the teacher-report FPVS converged with the self-report FPVS; however, the correlations observed across these scales were modest in magnitude, even for the same subscales. Given the evidence of concurrent and convergent validity for the teacher-report FPVS, this modest level of convergence with the self-report FPVS is not necessarily a weakness. In fact, it may reveal the unique perspective that teachers offer in the assessment of peer victimization.</p> <p>For instance, while children's self reports reflect their perceived personal experiences of peer victimization, teachers' reports may be more global in nature and reflect children's peer victimization based on perceived classroom norms. Future studies could examine whether child or teacher reports of peer victimization are more aligned with classroom norms for peer victimization. If our speculation is correct, the FPVS self-and teacher-report scales could be used to serve different functions. For example, schools could use the self-report scale to identify students in need of support or by clinicians to gauge children's beliefs about their peer victimization. The teacher-report scale could be used to assess overall levels and global changes in peer victimization in classrooms and schools. Since it is often easier and more efficient to collect teacher than student data, the teacher-report FPVS could be a practical tool for schools.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-36">Longitudinal Assessment</hd> <p>The current results also indicate that the FPVS total scores and subscales are relatively stable over the school year. The four-factor structure of the self-and teacher-report scales was supported at both time points. The total scores and subscales also positively correlated across the school year. However, longitudinal variance was detected for certain forms of peer victimization in terms of factor and indicator means. Together, these findings suggest that the FPVS was able to capture the stable properties of peer victimization—that is, the increased tendency for children who are victimized at one point in time to experience later peer victimization ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref142">63</reflink>]). At the same time, the FPVS subscales appear sensitive to change over the school year—that is, peer victimization can be stable for children while fluctuating in its overall levels, and the FPVS may have captured both dimensions.</p> <p>Notably, self-reported social victimization decreased over the school year, whereas three forms of teacher-reported peer victimization (all but physical victimization) increased over the school year. As noted earlier, children's and teachers' reports may capture unique aspects of peer victimization, which could explain some of this discrepancy. This discrepancy also highlights the importance of not relying on children's self-reports of peer victimization alone to assess changes in victimization over time or in response to intervention. It is especially interesting that children reported less social victimization and teachers reported more social victimization over time. During the school year, teachers might gradually become more aware of students' relations with one another, which sharpens their ability to spot certain forms of peer victimization.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-37">Limitations</hd> <p>Several weaknesses of this investigation warrant discussion. The FPVS was tested by using data from fourth-and fifth-grade children, and the results should not be generalized to younger or older age groups. Preliminary analyses also indicated that our sample might have underrepresented boys, European American children, and children with higher levels of internalizing symptoms. Thus, cross-validation with additional samples is important to further assess the FPVS. Moreover, it will be important to conduct multigroup testing of our CFA models in future research to examine the demographic invariance of model parameters (e.g. factor loadings) that we were unable to explore via MIMIC modeling.</p> <p>In terms of convergent validity, we adapted the self-report PVS ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref143">5</reflink>]) for teacher report; thus, the psychometrics of this comparison measure are unclear. Also, we did not include any alternate multidimensional peer victimization scales in this study. Consequently, we were unable to examine whether the FPVS's subscales correlate with other measures of the same or similar categories of peer victimization. In future research, it will be helpful to test whether the FPVS converges with validated teacher-report measures, along with established multidimensional scales. However, as noted earlier, multidimensional scales are relatively scarce, and many organize different forms of peer victimization in less than optimal ways.</p> <p>Regarding validity, we assessed the FPVS's associations with a broad range of constructs measured via self and teacher report. However, these constructs were all are maladaptive rather than adaptive (e.g. peer acceptance, reciprocal friendship, and well-being). Thus, our analysis was limited to testing convergent (but not discriminant) validity. Additional research is needed to determine whether the FPVS diverges with constructs negatively related to peer victimization to provide a richer picture of the scale's construct validity. Furthermore, while it was beyond the scope of this investigation, it is also critical to assess the predictive validity of the FPVS to determine whether its total scores and subscales predict changes in key constructs over time.</p> <p>It is also important to reiterate that the data for this project were collected in the context of an evaluation of a bullying prevention program. Though this is common practice (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref144">69</reflink>]), it warrants discussion of external validity. To reiterate, all analyses conducted in this study took place at the first assessment point before any schools received the prevention program, with the exception of analyses evaluating temporal stability and longitudinal invariance. Thus, our findings for these exceptions might not generalize outside of ongoing program evaluation, so they should be considered with some caution.</p> <hd id="AN0149046865-38">Implications</hd> <p>The FPVS could help advance research in the study of peer victimization in several key areas. As noted, the FPVS could be used to facilitate further investigation of how different forms of peer victimization are associated with children's current and future functioning. Continued research in this area is particularly important given the problems highlighted earlier regarding existing multidimensional measures of peer victimization. Additionally, the FPVS could be used to explore whether different groups of children encounter different clusters of peer victimization experiences. Analytic methods, such as latent class analysis, could be used to identify profiles of children who suffer stable combinations of peer victimization experiences and then examine whether different child profiles are associated with distinct patterns of correlates and consequences (see [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref145">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>With further validation, the FPVS could be used by schools to assess the occurrence of peer victimization among students and the effects of prevention programs. Specifically, these scales could help reveal overall levels of peer victimization in schools, as well as the prevalence of different forms of peer victimization, which may differ from between schools, grades, and even classrooms. The FPVS could help identify such differences, which could assist schools in individualizing their programming to curb peer victimization more effectively. As we have previously argued, classrooms and schools are unique socioecologies, and school-based socioemotional programs simply cannot be one size fits all ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref146">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>We gladly acknowledge all of the children and teachers who participated in this project, along with the undergraduate research assistants who volunteered their time.</p> <ref id="AN0149046865-39"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref72" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach, T., & Rescorla, L. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref107" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling (pp. 243–277). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arora, C. M. J., & Thompson, D. A. (1987). My Life in School Checklist. Cited in Sharp, S. (1999). Bullying behaviour in schools. NFER-Nelson. Updated by Wolverhampton LEA (Local Education Authority), Wolverhampton, England (1992).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref113" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Asparouhov, T. (2006). General multilevel modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(4), 447–456.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref48" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beran, T., & Stewart, S. (2008). Teachers' and students' reports of physical and indirect bullying. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 242–244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref61" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beran, T. N., & Tutty, L. (2002). Children's reports of bullying and safety at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 17(2), 1–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bettencourt, A. F., Musci, R., Clemans, K. H., Carinci, J., & Ialongo, N. S. (2017). Patterns of peer-and teacher-rated aggression, victimization, and prosocial behavior in an urban, predominantly African American preadolescent sample: Associations with peer-perceived characteristics. Journal of School Psychology, 65, 83–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref54" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Borg, M. G. (1998). The emotional reactions of school bullies and their victims. Educational Psychology, 18(4), 433–444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & O'Brennan, L. M. (2013). A latent class approach to examining forms of peer victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 839–849.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callaghan, S., & Joseph, S. (1995). Self-concept and peer victimization among schoolchildren. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(1), 161–163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carey, M. P., Faulstich, M. E., Gresham, F. M., Ruggiero, L., & Enyart, P. (1987). Children's Depression Inventory: Construct and discriminant validity across clinical and nonreferred (control) populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 755–761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, J. H. F., Myron, R. R., & Crawshaw, C. M. (2005). The efficacy of non-anonymous measures of bullying. School Psychology International, 26(4), 443–458.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornell, D., & Limber, S. P. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of bullying at school. American Psychologist, 70(4), 333–343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craig, W. M., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying on the playground and in the classroom. International Journal of School Psychology, 21(1), 22–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 367–380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54(6), 1386–1399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10(3), 389–409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–383.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20(1), 81–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. (2012). Let's prevent peer victimization, not just bullying. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(4), 271–274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589–600.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059–1065.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Test bank for statistical methods in education & psychology (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development, 46(3), 709–718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 379–400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guimond, F.-A., Laursen, B., Hartl, A. C., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2019). Differences in internalizing symptoms anticipate adolescent friendship dissolution. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 924–937.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J., Tatham, R., Anderson, R., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust statistics. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt, C. (2007). The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(1), 21–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt, C., Peters, L., & Rapee, R. M. (2012). Development of a measure of the experience of being bullied in youth. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 156–165.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, S., & Stockton, H. (2018). The multidimensional peer victimization scale: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 96–114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 535–551.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kingery, J. N., Ginsburg, G. S., & Burstein, M. (2009). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children in an African American adolescent sample. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 40(2), 287–300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21(4), 995–998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovacs, M. (1992). Children's Depression Inventory. Multi-Health Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovacs, M. (2011). Children's Depression Inventory, 2nd edition (CDI 2): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumpulainen, K. (2008). Psychiatric conditions associated with bullying. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 121–132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 74–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young children's early school adjustment. Child Development, 67(3), 1103–1118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March, J. S. (1997). Multidimensional Scale for Children: Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March, J. S., Parker, J. D., Sullivan, K., Stallings, P., & Conners, C. K. (1997). The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(4), 554–565.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March, J. S., Sullivan, K., & Parker, J. (1999). Test–retest reliability of the multidimensional anxiety scale for children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 349–358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 701–732.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDougal, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70(4), 300–310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, M. T., Hooker, S. D., & Cate, R. L. (2015). Consultation in bullying prevention: An elementary-school case study. School Community Journal, 25(2), 85–112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., Barheight, L. J., & Thomson, A. K. (2014). Fifth-grade children's daily experiences of peer victimization and negative emotions: Moderating effects of sex and peer rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(7), 1089–1102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., & Sharp, M. K. (2019). Preadolescents' daily peer victimization and perceived social competence: Moderating effects of classroom aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(5), 716–727.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., & Swift, L. E. (2014). Relations among multiple types of peer victimization, reactivity to peer victimization, and academic achievement in fifth-grade boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60(3), 302–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. (2003, June 12). Cluster size [Online discussion group]. Retrieved July 13, 2014, from <ulink href="http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/12/164.html">http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/12/164.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26(2), 169–178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19(2), 221–242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26, 331–359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 751–780.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orpinas, P. (1993). Skills training and social influences for violence prevention in middle schools: A curriculum evaluation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas–Houston, School of Public Health). Dissertation Abstracts International, 94–01778.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and a new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73–104). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children's naturalistic entry behavior and sociometric status: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 297–305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244–252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2: Behavior assessment system for children, second edition manual. American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Sociometric status and children's peer experiences: Use of the daily diary method. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(4), 427–452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Singer, M. M., & Van der Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 379–394.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S., & Waters, S. (2013). The Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1045–1057.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shetgiri, R. (2013). Bullying and victimization among children. Advances in Pediatrics, 60(1), 33–51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239–268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, J. G., Valeri, L., Esposito, E. C., & Auerbach, R. P. (2018). Peer victimization and suicidal thoughts and behaviors in depressed adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 581–596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swift, L. E., Hubbard, J. A., Bookhout, M., Smith, M., Grassetti, S., & Morrow, M. T. (2017). Teacher factors contributing to dosage of the KiVa anti-bullying program. Journal of School Psychology, 65, 102–115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarshis, T. P., & Huffman, L. C. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Peer Interactions in Primary School (PIPS) questionnaire. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(2), 125–132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigderson, S., & Lynch, M. (2013). Cyber- and traditional peer victimization: Unique relationships with adolescent well-being. Psychology of Violence, 3(4), 297–309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolke, D., & Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100(9), 879–885.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michael T. Morrow; Julie A. Hubbard; Megan K. Bookhout; Stevie N. Grassetti; Marissa A. Docimo and Lauren E. Swift</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Michael T. Morrow, Psychology Department;</p> <p>Julie A. Hubbard, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences;</p> <p>Megan K. Bookhout, Department of Psychology;</p> <p>Stevie N. Grassetti, Psychology Department;</p> <p>Marissa A. Docimo, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences;</p> <p>Lauren E. Swift, Center for Sleep Medicine.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib397" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib216" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref145"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1295237
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Validation of the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morrow%2C+Michael+T%2E%22">Morrow, Michael T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hubbard%2C+Julie+A%2E%22">Hubbard, Julie A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bookhout%2C+Megan+K%2E%22">Bookhout, Megan K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grassetti%2C+Stevie+N%2E%22">Grassetti, Stevie N.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Docimo%2C+Marissa+A%2E%22">Docimo, Marissa A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Swift%2C+Lauren+E%2E%22">Swift, Lauren E.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Merrill-Palmer+Quarterly%3A+Journal+of+Developmental+Psychology%22"><i>Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology</i></searchLink>. Jan 2021 67(1):23-55.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wayne State University Press. The Leonard N. Simons Building, 4809 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48201-1309. Tel: 800-978-7323; Fax: 313-577-6131; Web site: http://wsupress.wayne.edu/journals/merrill/merrillj.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 33
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Victims%22">Victims</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bullying%22">Bullying</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Depression+%28Psychology%29%22">Depression (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Symptoms+%28Individual+Disorders%29%22">Symptoms (Individual Disorders)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Behavior%22">Social Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Childrens+Depression+Inventory%22">Childrens Depression Inventory</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0272-930X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Childhood peer victimization is prevalent and harmful; thus, it is critical to carefully assess this construct. We extended an existing measure to create the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale (FPVS), which assesses multiple forms of peer victimization via self and teacher report. Participants included 1,440 fourth- and fifth-grade children (50% girls; M age = 10.1 years) and their teachers. They completed the FPVS in the fall and spring of one school year, as well as additional measures of peer victimization and psychosocial functioning. Results supported identical four-factor models for the self- and teacher-report scales. The four factors, aggregated as subscales (physical victimization, verbal victimization, social victimization, and property attacks), demonstrated internal consistency, temporal stability, and concurrent and convergent validity. The FPVS evidenced promising psychometric properties and stands out from other measures by assessing peer victimization (not bullying), including experiences of social rebuff, demonstrating temporal stability, and offering self- and teacher-report scales.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/mpq/vol67/iss1/2" linkWindow="_blank">https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/mpq/vol67/iss1/2</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1295237
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1295237
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 33
        StartPage: 23
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Victims
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bullying
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Depression (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Symptoms (Individual Disorders)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Depression Inventory
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Validation of the Forms of Peer Victimization Scale
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morrow, Michael T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hubbard, Julie A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bookhout, Megan K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Grassetti, Stevie N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Docimo, Marissa A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Swift, Lauren E.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0272-930X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 67
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1