View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Modeling Changes in Classroom Incivility across Adolescence

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Modeling Changes in Classroom Incivility across Adolescence
Language: English
Authors: Natalie Spadafora (ORCID 0000-0001-8498-1712), Elizabeth Al-jbouri, Naomi C. Z. Andrews (ORCID 0000-0002-9390-314X), Anthony A. Volk
Source: Journal of Adolescence. 2025 97(6):1680-1686.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Student Behavior, Behavior Problems, Antisocial Behavior, Classroom Environment, Secondary School Students, Early Adolescents, Late Adolescents
DOI: 10.1002/jad.12509
ISSN: 0140-1971
1095-9254
Abstract: Introduction: Classroom incivility is low-level antisocial behavior that disrupts the overall learning environment. It is an important behavior to be studied in adolescence, given its associations with other antisocial behavior (e.g., bullying), negative impact on the learning environment, and predicting later aggressive behavior. The current study examined the developmental growth of classroom incivility in adolescence. Methods: We examined the growth of self-reported classroom incivility in a sample of Canadian grade 8-12 students (N[subscript T1] = 559; 54% boys; Mage = 14.9 years) with data from an on-going longitudinal study collected between Fall 2022 and Spring 2024. Results: Using growth curve modeling across ten timepoints of data collected over four waves of data collection, our findings suggested that the quadratic model fit our data best (compared to both a no-growth and a linear model). That is, our findings showed that classroom incivility increases in early adolescence, tapering off in the later grades (i.e., grade 11 and 12). Conclusion: Our results not only add important information about the developmental growth of adolescent classroom incivility to the current literature, but also provide insight that can be used by schools, suggesting that early adolescence might be a key developmental period for promoting civil behavior.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1478972
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQxJfb3lQSmPqwtJui1ZBwAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH5nqC_x5scYtw1KBQIBEICBmlFNTNSGEruVLvBW8mFr8YAuxlRTJzUbj4EJAoYYHBgXrkZiocwhvXOIr8upBXTx8UQRIV7Iy5sqE6NyACITXmhpcXFz8bWjwYt_0SonQFpahx8IUd_LRTcZkgjAEdyzl52bJi577fNCyj_pWzUI_UfQuE0cFjndj5RyHV_BZ9tGwwn_KKFlDwDHVDO18_fKedjZ8nI0TNjALlc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187096895;jaa01aug.25;2025Aug05.05:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187096895-1">Modeling Changes in Classroom Incivility Across Adolescence </title> <p>Introduction: Classroom incivility is low‐level antisocial behavior that disrupts the overall learning environment. It is an important behavior to be studied in adolescence, given its associations with other antisocial behavior (e.g., bullying), negative impact on the learning environment, and predicting later aggressive behavior. The current study examined the developmental growth of classroom incivility in adolescence. Methods: We examined the growth of self‐reported classroom incivility in a sample of Canadian grade 8–12 students (NT1 = 559; 54% boys; Mage = 14.9 years) with data from an on‐going longitudinal study collected between Fall 2022 and Spring 2024. Results: Using growth curve modeling across ten timepoints of data collected over four waves of data collection, our findings suggested that the quadratic model fit our data best (compared to both a no‐growth and a linear model). That is, our findings showed that classroom incivility increases in early adolescence, tapering off in the later grades (i.e., grade 11 and 12). Conclusion: Our results not only add important information about the developmental growth of adolescent classroom incivility to the current literature, but also provide insight that can be used by schools, suggesting that early adolescence might be a key developmental period for promoting civil behavior.</p> <p>Keywords: adolescence; classroom; incivility; longitudinal</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Incivility is defined as low‐level antisocial behavior with an ambiguous intent to harm others (Pearson et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]). These actions range from those that are rude and disrespectful to those that are hurtful and harmful (Andersson and Pearson [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]). Incivility has been examined across a range of contexts including the workplace (Schilpzand et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]), as well as postsecondary (Segrist et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]) and secondary (Spadafora et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]) schools. Although low‐level, these behaviors have the potential to escalate, as well as undermine overall group functioning (Lim et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]). <emph>Classroom</emph> incivility references behaviors that can culminate in classroom learning interruptions, disrespect towards teachers, or hurt feelings (Feldmann [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]). Given that adolescence is a formative developmental period during which classroom pro‐ and antisocial behaviors can be learned and cultivated (Dishion and Patterson [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]), it is important to better understand how this low‐level antisocial behavior emerges and develops across adolescence. Therefore, the goal of our current study was to examine the developmental growth trajectory of classroom incivility across adolescence.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-3">Incivility in Adolescence</hd> <p>Adolescence is an important developmental period for studying antisocial behavior such as classroom incivility, as behaviors established in adolescence tend to continue and be difficult to change in adulthood (Slobodskaya [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]). Further, this developmental period is a critical time for peer relationships and associated social status (Bukowski et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]). With regard to classroom incivility in adolescence, cross‐sectional data suggest that while engaging in the highest levels of classroom incivility is associated with fewer friends, engaging in moderate levels of uncivil behavior in the classroom is associated with the highest levels of friendships and social status within the peer social network (Spadafora et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]). In the same vein, during adolescence in particular, it might not be "cool" to completely follow classroom rules, and going against some classroom expectations might be a demonstration of power, a challenge of the teacher's authority, or means of gaining attention from classmates (Milner [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]; Rodkin et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]). Taken together, this provides further support for the necessity to continue studying classroom incivility during adolescence.</p> <p>Over the last decade, there has been a small but growing body of work on classroom incivility in adolescence (e.g., Bingöl et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Spadafora et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]; Susilawati et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]). For example, in their correlational study of junior high school students in Indonesia, Nugroho and Sutoyo ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]) found that adolescent classroom incivility was significantly positively associated with honesty. Research has also established that engagement in classroom incivility in adolescence may be associated with negative traits and behaviors (e.g., Bai et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]), having fewer friends (Spadafora et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]), and may predict bullying behavior across time (Marini [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]; Spadafora and Volk [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref21">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the classroom, recent research suggests that adolescent incivility is negatively related to both academic and emotional self‐efficacy (Eker and Taş [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]) and can negatively impact teacher‐student relationships (Gao et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]). Adolescent students and their teachers can also have differing perspectives on what behaviors are considered uncivil within the classroom (Spadafora and Volk [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]), making it increasingly important to study incivility in adolescence. Further, there is a demonstrated overall increase in adolescent classroom incivility associated with the COVID‐19 school shutdowns (Spadafora et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]), making the continued investigation of this behavior at this sensitive developmental period of even greater importance.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-4">Longitudinal Classroom Incivility</hd> <p>Taking a developmental perspective on reported uncivil behavior in the classroom allows us to consider changes that might occur in this behavior over time. To our knowledge, only one study has analyzed longitudinal data of adolescent classroom incivility. In that study, Spadafora and Volk ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]) found that engaging in classroom incivility at baseline (ages 9–14 years old) predicted engaging in bullying behavior at a second wave of data 3 years later (but not the other way around), and that classroom incivility was stable across time.</p> <p>A related study longitudinally examined antecedents and outcomes of adolescent incivility in sports environments, examining coach and teammate incivility, similarly finding that this construct was stable across time, but did not investigate the growth of adolescent incivility in general (Kinoshita and Sato [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]). Thus, the lack of longitudinal research leaves an important gap in our current understanding of adolescent classroom incivility, and more work is needed to examine developmental changes in incivility over time.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-5">Current Study</hd> <p>The goal of our study was to thus examine the developmental growth of self‐reported classroom incivility in adolescent students. To do this, we considered changes in adolescent classroom incivility across a sample of grade 8–12 students, using data representing 10 grade‐level time points collected across four waves of data collection. We predicted that levels of classroom incivility would show a linear increase across adolescent development.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187096895-7">Study Overview</hd> <p>Data for the current study was drawn from an on‐going longitudinal project on adolescent relationships that was conducted in a local school board in southern Ontario. For this study, we utilize four points of data collection from this project: Wave 1 (Fall 2022), Wave 2 (Spring 2023), Wave 3 (Fall 2023), and Wave 4 (Spring 2024). Data was collected from students in grades 8–12 in Waves 1 and 2, and from students in grades 9–12 in Waves 3 and 4. Students attended 5 elementary schools that fed into one high school in a region in southern Ontario. This family of schools was assigned to us by the local school board.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-8">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 559 youth ages 12–18 years (<emph>M</emph><subs>T1</subs> = 14.9, <emph>M</emph><subs>T2</subs> = 15.3, <emph>M</emph><subs>T3</subs> = 15.5, <emph>M</emph><subs>T4</subs> = 15.9) in Southern Ontario. Sample sizes for each wave of data collection were Wave 1 <emph>n</emph> = 559; Wave 2 <emph>n</emph> = 545; Wave 3 <emph>n</emph> = 493, and Wave 4 <emph>n</emph> = 474. Roughly half of participants identified as boys (54% T1, 52% T2, 53% T3, 50% T4) and White (57% T1, 55% T2, 49% T3, 50% T4). When asked about their socioeconomic status, participants most frequently reported their families as "about the same" as other Canadians (49% T1, 47% T2, 47% T3, 49% T4). At Time 1, the sample was between the ages of 12 and 18 (<emph>M</emph> = 14.88; SD = 1.42), and was comprised of 299 (53.5%) boys; 237 (42.4%) girls, 9 (1.6%) identifed as "other" and 14 (2.5%) preferred not to say. Self‐reported ethnicities were: 55.6% White, 9.1% Latin, 8.1% Black, 4.1% Southeast Asian, 2.7% West Asian, 1.6% South Asian, 1.1% East Asian, 13.6% Mixed, and 4.1% Other.</p> <p>The attrition between Waves 1 and 2 was 21.5%. After Wave 2, all grade 12 s (<emph>n</emph> = 71) would have graduated and were no longer a part of the current study. We then collected from grade 9–12 students in the new school year (Fall 2023). The attrition of the remaining sample between Waves 2 and 3 was 20.7%, and from Waves 3 to 4 was 18.5%. This includes students who withdrew from the study, were no longer at the school, or may have not been in class at later timepoints (e.g., absent or away for sporting event, etc.). In an overall comparison of those who were attrited vs, not, there were no significant differences on reported levels of classroom incivility at any time point. With regard to demographics, the only significant difference was the group that attrited over time was slighty older (<emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib207" id="ref28">207</reflink>) = 2.70, <emph>p</emph> = 0.008).</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-9">Procedure</hd> <p>For the elementary school participants (8th grade, T1 and T2), written parental consent was obtained for participation (consent<subs>T1</subs> = 87%, consent<subs>T2</subs> = 88%). For the secondary school participants (T1–T4), a passive consent procedure was employed. Parents were given the opportunity to withdraw consent and participants were required to provide assent at the time of the survey, resulting in an average consent rate of 97% across four time points (consent<subs>T1</subs> = 98%, consent<subs>T2</subs> = 96%, consent<subs>T3</subs> = 96%, consent<subs>T4</subs> = 98%).</p> <p>Principal investigators and trained research assistants visited the homeroom classes at five elementary schools and 1 secondary school, administering a self‐report and a peer nomination questionnaire to participants via a Qualtrics‐based survey downloaded to Android tablets. Research assistants provided clarification and reading support when required. Data for this study is drawn from the self‐report survey completed by participants. All measures and proceudres were approved by both the University Research Ethics Board and the school board ethics board.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187096895-11">Demographics</hd> <p>Participants answered questions providing their age, grade, gender, race, and socioeconomic status at each time point.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-12">Child and Youth Classroom Incivility</hd> <p>Incivility was measured using the Child and Youth Classroom Incivility Scale (Spadafora and Volk [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>]). This scale is composed of 11‐items asking students to report on how often the engage in uncivil classroom behavior, with responses ranging from 1 ("Almost Never/Never") to 5 ("Almost Always"). Higher scores indicate greater participation in uncivil behavior. The items on the scale include behavior that exemplify both intentional (e.g., "Making fun of a classmate who answered a question wrong") and unintentional incivility (e.g., "Sending text messages/notes during class"). Sample derived reliabilities were <emph>α</emph> = 0.80, 0.81, 0.86, and 0.87 for waves 1–4.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p>In a unique and sophisticated manner of utilizing longitudinal data, longitudinal analyses were based on grade and school year, rather than wave of data collection (e.g., Grimm et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>]). To do this, we considered length of time that each participant, at each time point, had been in school (e.g., Fall of Grade 8 to Spring of Grade 12). Therefore, while each individual could only have up to four time points of data, the resulting analytical dataset spanned across 10 timepoints. See Table 1 for all time points with sample sizes, including waves and cohorts each grade‐level time point consisted of, as well as descriptive statistics for classroom incivility.</p> <p>1 Table Collection waves, Ns, means, standard deviations, minimums, and maximums of classroom incivility.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Waves</th><th><italic>n</italic></th><th>Cohort</th><th><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th><th>Min.</th><th>Max.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Fall Grade 8</td><td>1</td><td>104</td><td>1</td><td>1.88 (0.52)</td><td>1.00</td><td>3.73</td></tr><tr><td>Spring Grade 8</td><td>2</td><td>117</td><td>1</td><td>1.96 (0.72)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Grade 9</td><td>1, 3</td><td>216</td><td>1, 2</td><td>1.98 (0.66)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Spring Grade 9</td><td>2, 4</td><td>241</td><td>1, 2</td><td>1.99 (0.66)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Grade 10</td><td>1, 3</td><td>258</td><td>2, 3</td><td>2.21 (0.63)</td><td>1.00</td><td>4.09</td></tr><tr><td>Spring Grade 10</td><td>2, 4</td><td>244</td><td>2, 3</td><td>2.12 (0.71)</td><td>1.00</td><td>4.45</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Grade 11</td><td>1, 3</td><td>221</td><td>3, 4</td><td>2.36 (0.75)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Spring Grade 11</td><td>2, 4</td><td>233</td><td>3, 4</td><td>2.22 (0.70)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Fall Grade 12</td><td>1, 3</td><td>206</td><td>4</td><td>2.21 (0.64)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr><tr><td>Spring Grade 12</td><td>2, 4</td><td>169</td><td>4</td><td>2.21 (0.73)</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>First, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of classroom incivility at each timepoint were examined. Next, we used a longitudinal growth curve model for classroom incivility. We assessed a no growth model, a linear growth model, and a quadratic growth model. To compare models, we considered information criteria (Akaike's Information Criteria (AIC), Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), Sample‐Size Adjusted BIC (BICadj) and a <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> difference (likelihood ratio) test. Lower values for the AIC/BIC reflect a more parsimonious model. To determine a model with acceptable fit, a <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/<emph>df</emph> value less than 5 was used (Wheaton et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]). In addition, we used the following fit indices and cutoffs to assess model fit: a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.95, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.06 (Hu and Bentler [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]), and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.08 (Hu and Bentler [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]). We also considered the interpretability of the models when deciding which would be our final model, as indices of model fit are not always unanimous in which model is the best fitting model (Hooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]). Finally, we checked the significance level of the slope variance, as if significant, the next step is to add covariates (i.e., age and gender) to the model (Grimm et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187096895-15">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Table 1 shows the waves of data collection at which each grade timepoint was collected, as well as the mean of classroom incivility at each timepoint. Table 2 presents bivariate correlations between classroom incivility at all timepoints.</p> <p>2 Table Bivariate correlations between classroom incivility at all time points.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. Fall Grade 8</td><td>0.57<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.46<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.27<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.10<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.10<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.05<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>2. Spring Grade 8</td><td>—</td><td>0.56<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.68<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.13<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.26<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.12<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.08<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.11<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>3. Fall Grade 9</td><td /><td>—</td><td>0.56<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.58<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.39<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.32<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.36<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.34<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.43<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>4. Spring Grade 9</td><td /><td /><td>—</td><td>0.57<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.66<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.39<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.43<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.37<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.39<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>5. Fall Grade 10</td><td /><td /><td /><td>—</td><td>0.59<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>57<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.58<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.54<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.61<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>6. Spring Grade 10</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>—</td><td>0.56<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.58<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.48<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.43<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>7. Fall Grade 11</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>—</td><td>0.46<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.60<ext-link href="**" /></td><td>0.47<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>8. Spring Grade 11</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>—</td><td>0.60<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>0.47<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>9. Fall Grade 12</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>—</td><td>0.64<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>10. Spring Grade 12</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <ulist> <item>2 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</item> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187096895-16">Growth Curve Model Results</hd> <p>Using Mplus version 7.2 (Muthén & Muthén [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]), we assessed a series of growth curve models. The linear model (χ<sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref37">42</reflink>] = 86.17, <emph>p</emph> <  0.001, AIC  =  3642.13, BIC  =  3674.70, BIC<subs>adj</subs> =  3652.47) fit better than the no‐growth model (χ<sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>] = 129.64, <emph>p</emph> <  0.001, AIC  =  3679.60, BIC =  3698.21, BIC<subs>adj</subs> =  3685.50); (χ<sups>2</sups><subs>diff</subs> [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>] = 43.47, <emph>p</emph> =  <0.001). The significant and positive slope (0.04, <emph>p</emph> = <0.001) in the linear model indicated linear growth of classroom incivility. Next, we assessed a quadratic model. As per modification indices, to improve the model fit, we freed the residual variance for Fall Grade 11 classroom incivility scores. A chi‐squared difference test revealed that the quadratic model (χ<sups>2</sups>[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref40">38</reflink>] = 67.94, <emph>p</emph> <  0.01, AIC  =  3631.90, BIC  =  3683.08, BIC<subs>adj</subs> =  3648.15) fit better than the linear model (χ<sups>2</sups><subs>diff</subs> [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>] = 18.23, <emph>p</emph> =  0.001). This was further supported by information criteria and model fit indices (See Table 3). Therefore, this is the model that we retained. See Figure 1 for full model results of the quadratic model.</p> <p>3 Table Model fit indices of no growth, linear, and quadratic growth models.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>No Growth Model</th><th>Linear Growth Model</th><th>Quadratic Model</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>χ2 (df)</td><td>129.64 (45)</td><td>86.17 (42)</td><td>67.94 (38)</td></tr><tr><td>CFI</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>RMSEA</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>SRMR</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.15</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/JAA/01aug25/jad12509-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jad12509-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Quadratic growth model for classroom incivility." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The significant negative slope −0.01, <emph>p</emph> = 0.02) in this model indicated growth of classroom incivility, such that levels of incivility increase and accelerate at the beginning (e.g., earlier grades), with growth slowing in the later grades. The intercept was 1.86, <emph>p</emph> = <0.001, indicating relatively low levels of reported classroom incivility at the first time point (response scale from 1 to 5; Figure 2). Slope variances (for both linear and quadratic slopes) were not significant, indicating limited variability across individuals in their rate of change. Covariates were not added to the model, as slope variances were not significant (i.e., there was not a meaningful amount of slope variance to predict with covariates).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/JAA/01aug25/jad12509-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jad12509-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Classroom incivility across time." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187096895-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of our study was to examine the developmental growth of self‐reported classroom incivility in a sample of adolescent (grade 8–12) students. Our results show that while classroom incivility increases across adolescence, this increase appears to taper off as students reach later adolescence (i.e., grades 11 and 12). These findings provide important context for the developmental changes that may be occurring with regard to uncivil behavior, and therefore provide research and interventions insight into early adolescence as a critical time for the development of civility.</p> <p>Our linear model fit better than the no growth model, but our quadratic model was the best fitting model, with a negative and significant quadratic slope. Though significant, the effect size was small (−0.01) suggesting that the rate of change in classroom incivility over adolescence is relatively small. Although the curve of the slope was relatively modest (Figure 2), this finding suggests that most of the change in classroom incivility occurs in the earlier grades, tapering off by the older grades. In other words, it appears that students in grades 8–10 display increases in classroom uncivil behavior, but once these students reach grades 11 and 12, their level of uncivil behavior may become more stable. While the increase in incivility across age mirrors previous cross sectional correlational data in early adolescence (i.e., ages 10–14; e.g., Spadafora and Volk [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]), our current data offer greater specificity about the timing, form (i.e., linear vs<emph>.</emph> quadratic), and magnitude of the changes.</p> <p>Neither linear nor quadratic slope variances were significant, indicating limited variability across individuals in their rate of change. In other words, our results suggest that adolescents' engagement in classroom incivility changes at relatively similar rates across individuals. Whereas our previous correlational data has found that, at individual timepoints, boys report engaging in classroom incivility more often than girls (e.g., Spadafora and Volk [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]), our current data suggest that adolescents demonstrate increases in classroom incivility in a similar manner regardless of individual differences.</p> <p>Theoretically, our results suggest that early adolescence may play a more formative role in dictating incivility. Our work also adds to the growing body of literature on adolescent classroom incivility, by offering a growth curve analysis of classroom incivility, which has not previously been examined. Our data mirror the decrease typically seen in adolescent‐adult relationships, suggesting that incivility may represent a distancing from adult‐sanctioned norms of behavior, particularly within the classroom setting (Milner [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]). It is also worth noting that the pattern of growth in classroom incivility is similar to previous growth curve model results of delinquency in adolescence (Windle [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]). Practically, our findings provide important information that can be used by schools and educators when considering interventions against classroom incivility. Specifically, our results highlight that early adolescence may be a key developmental period for promoting civil and/or targeting uncivil behavior. Increased education on civility, along with setting firm guidelines for expectations in the classroom setting, may support reducing incivility in the classroom and beyond.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-20">Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions</hd> <p>Our findings add important information to overall understandings of classroom incivility in adolescence; however, there are some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, our data were collected from a high school in southern Ontario. Our findings should be replicated in other samples both within Canada and internationally, to better assess generalizability. A major strength of our study is the 10 timepoint developmental design we employed to examine changes across grade levels. However, due to limited variability as noted above, we were unable to look at differences between individual students. We call for future work to conduct qualitative studies with adolescents to better understand why these trends might be occurring. Further, our measure of classroom incivility is self‐reported. It is possible that levels of incivility could be different if reported by peers or the classroom teacher. We also chose to focus on overall classroom incivility as opposed to examining the growth trajectory of subtypes of this behavior (e.g., intentional and unintentional; Spadafora and Volk [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>]). Future work should examine the growth of these different subtypes of this behavior across development. Finally, we do not know the longitudinal trajectory of incivility before or after adolescence. Longitudinal growth models of younger and/or older samples would help determine the complete developmental trajectory of incivility over the lifespan.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>Our study provides important information about the developmental growth of classroom incivility across adolescence. In line with recommendations from Bai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>]), we also suggest increased attention to uncivil behavior within the school, including increased education on incivility in the classroom. Overall, researchers should continue to further our understanding of the developmental trajectory of classroom incivility, particularly across adolescence, and this information can help illuminate potential practical considerations for adolescents, their teachers, and their families.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-22">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Ethical approval was granted by the University Research Ethics Board (#18‐053).</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-23">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187096895-24">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <ref id="AN0187096895-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andersson, L. M., and C. M. Pearson. 1999. " Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace." Academy of Management Review 24, no. 3 : 452 – 471.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, Q., Y. Zhang, Q. Dan, and T. Kishimoto. 2024. " Understanding School Incivility: Exploring Its Impact on Students and Practical Interventions." Computers in Human Behavior 152 : 108037.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bingöl, T., N. Sölpük Turhan, N. Arslan, M. Ü. Öztabak, and Ş. Çetintaş. 2018. " Sınıf Içi Kaba Davranışlar Ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye Uyarlaması." Sakarya University Journal of Education 8, no. 1 : 165 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bukowski, W. M., D. Buhrmester, and M. K. Underwood. 2011. " Peer Relations as a Developmental Context." In Social Development: Relationships in Infancy Childhood and Adolescence, edited by M. K. Underwood, L. H. Rosen, and L. H., 2011, 153 – 179. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Dishion, T. J., and G. R. Patterson (2015). The Development and Ecology of Antisocial Behaviour in Children and Adolescents. In D. Cicchetti and D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Volume Three: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (2nd ed.), pp. 503 – 541.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Eker, A. P. D. H., and İ. Taş (2023). Investigation of the Relationship Between Classroom Incivility and Self‐Efficacy Among Adolescents.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Feldmann, L. J. 2001. " Classroom Civility is Another of Our Instructor Responsibilities." College Teaching 49, no. 4 : 137 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gao, L., F. Kong, L. Cui, N. Feng, and X. Wang. 2024. " Teacher–Student Relationships and Adolescents' Classroom Incivility: A Moderated Mediation Model of Moral Disengagement and Negative Coping Style." Psychology in the Schools 61, no. 2 : 496 – 513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref30" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Grimm, K. J., G. L. Mazza, and M. M. M. Mazzocco. 2016. " Advances in Methods for Assessing Longitudinal Change." Educational Psychologist 51, no. 3–4 : 342 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1208569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper, D., J. Coughlan, and M. Mullen (September 2008). Evaluating Model Fit: A synthesis of the Structural Equation Modelling Literature. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (Vol. 2008, 195 – 200).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1998. " Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification." Psychological Methods 3, no. 4 : 424 – 453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. " Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1 : 1 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinoshita, K., and S. Sato. 2023. " Incivility and Psychological Safety in Youth Sport: The Reciprocal Effects and its Impact on Well‐Being and Social Outcomes." Sport Management Review 26, no. 2 : 246 – 270.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, S., L. M. Cortina, and V. J. Magley. 2008. " Personal and Workgroup Incivility: Impact on Work and Health Outcomes." Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 1 : 95 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marini, Z. A. 2009. " The Thing Line Between Civility and Incivility: Fostering Reflection and Self‐Awareness to Create a Civil Learning Community." Collected Essays on Teaching and Learning 2 : 61 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R. 2013. " Classroom Management in Urban Classrooms." In Handbook of Classroom Management, 501 – 532. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 2018. Mplus User's Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA : Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nugroho, I. S., and A. Sutoyo. 2023. " Prediction of Moral Disengagement and Incivility against the Honesty of Junior High School Students." Prediction of Moral Disengagement and Incivility Against the Honesty of Junior High School Students 5, no. 1 : 20 – 29. https://doi.org/10.51214/bocp.v5i1.424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, C. M., L. M. Andersson, and C. L. Porath (2005). Workplace incivility.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodkin, P. C., T. W. Farmer, R. Pearl, and R. Van Acker. 2000. " Heterogeneity of Popular Boys: Antisocial and Prosocial Configurations." Developmental Psychology 36, no. 1 : 14 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schilpzand, P., I. E. De Pater, and A. Erez. 2016. " Workplace Incivility: A Review of the Literature and Agenda for Future Research." Journal of Organizational behavior 37 : 57 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segrist, D., L. K. Bartels, and C. R. Nordstrom. 2018. " 'But Everyone Else Is Doing It:' A Social Norms Perspective on Classroom Incivility." College Teaching 66, no. 4 : 181 – 186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slobodskaya, H. R. 2021. " Personality Development from Early Childhood through Adolescence." Personality and Individual Differences 172 : 110596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., E. Al‐Jbouri, H. McDowell, N. C. Z. Andrews, and A. A. Volk. 2022. " Be a Little Rude, but Not Too Much: Exploring Classroom Incivility and Social Network Position in Adolescents." Journal of Early Adolescence 42, no. 4 : 565 – 585.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., E. Al‐Jbouri, and A. A. Volk. 2024. " Are Children and Adolescents More Uncivil after Covid‐19? " School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000672.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., J. C. Frijters, D. S. Molnar, and A. A. Volk. 2020. " Do Little Annoyances Relate to Bullying? The Links between Personality, Attitudes Towards Classroom Incivility, and Bullying." Educational and Developmental Psychologist 37, no. 1 : 30 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., and A. Volk. 2023. " How Do Adolescent Students and Their Teachers Conceptualize Classroom Incivility? " Brock Education Journal 32, no. 2 : 58 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., and A. A. Volk. 2021. " Child and Youth Classroom Incivility Scale (CYCIS): Exploring Uncivil Behaviors in the Classroom." School Mental Health 13, no. 1 : 186 – 200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., and A. A. Volk. 2024. " Does Adolescent Incivility Longitudinally Predict Future Bullying? " Journal of Adolescence 96, no. 1 : 209 – 216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Susilawati, S., M. E. Wibowo, and S. Sunawan. 2020. " Moral Disengagement and Classroom Incivility against the Social Responsibility Character of Junior High School Students." Islamic Guidance and Counseling Journal 3, no. 1 : 26 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheaton, B., B. Muthen, D. F. Alwin, and G. F. Summers. 1977. " Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models." Sociological Methodology 8 : 84 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windle, M. 2000. " A Latent Growth Curve Model of Delinquent Activity Among Adolescents." Applied developmental science 4, no. 4 : 193 – 207.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Natalie Spadafora; Elizabeth Al‐jbouri; Naomi C. Z. Andrews and Anthony A. Volk</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib207" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1478972
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Modeling Changes in Classroom Incivility across Adolescence
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Natalie+Spadafora%22">Natalie Spadafora</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8498-1712">0000-0001-8498-1712</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elizabeth+Al-jbouri%22">Elizabeth Al-jbouri</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Naomi+C%2E+Z%2E+Andrews%22">Naomi C. Z. Andrews</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9390-314X">0000-0002-9390-314X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anthony+A%2E+Volk%22">Anthony A. Volk</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Adolescence%22"><i>Journal of Adolescence</i></searchLink>. 2025 97(6):1680-1686.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Antisocial+Behavior%22">Antisocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Late+Adolescents%22">Late Adolescents</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jad.12509
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0140-1971<br />1095-9254
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Introduction: Classroom incivility is low-level antisocial behavior that disrupts the overall learning environment. It is an important behavior to be studied in adolescence, given its associations with other antisocial behavior (e.g., bullying), negative impact on the learning environment, and predicting later aggressive behavior. The current study examined the developmental growth of classroom incivility in adolescence. Methods: We examined the growth of self-reported classroom incivility in a sample of Canadian grade 8-12 students (N[subscript T1] = 559; 54% boys; Mage = 14.9 years) with data from an on-going longitudinal study collected between Fall 2022 and Spring 2024. Results: Using growth curve modeling across ten timepoints of data collected over four waves of data collection, our findings suggested that the quadratic model fit our data best (compared to both a no-growth and a linear model). That is, our findings showed that classroom incivility increases in early adolescence, tapering off in the later grades (i.e., grade 11 and 12). Conclusion: Our results not only add important information about the developmental growth of adolescent classroom incivility to the current literature, but also provide insight that can be used by schools, suggesting that early adolescence might be a key developmental period for promoting civil behavior.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1478972
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1478972
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jad.12509
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 1680
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Antisocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Late Adolescents
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Modeling Changes in Classroom Incivility across Adolescence
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Natalie Spadafora
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elizabeth Al-jbouri
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Naomi C. Z. Andrews
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anthony A. Volk
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0140-1971
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1095-9254
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 97
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Adolescence
              Type: main
ResultId 1