Cited by 123Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingEducation for Peace and Conflict Resolution

KiVa Anti-Bullying Program in Italy: Evidence of Effectiveness in a Randomized Control Trial

Nocentini, Annalaura, Menesini, Ersilia·2016·Prevention Science

Abstract

The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the KiVa anti-bullying program in Italy through a randomized control trial of students in grades 4 and 6. The sample involved 2042 students (51 % female; grade 4, mean age = 8.85; ds = 0.43; grade 6, mean age = 10.93; ds = 0.50); 13 comprehensive schools were randomly assigned into intervention (KiVa) or control (usual school provision) conditions. Different outcomes (bullying, victimization, pro-bullying attitudes, pro-victim attitudes, empathy toward victims), analyses (longitudinal mixed model with multiple-item scales; longitudinal prevalence of bullies and victims using Olweus' single question), and estimates of effectiveness (Cohen's d; odds ratios) were considered in order to compare the Italian results with those from other countries. Multilevel models showed that KiVa reduced bullying and victimization and increased pro-victim attitudes and empathy toward the victim in grade 4, with effect sizes from 0.24 to 0.40. In grade 6, KiVa reduced bullying, victimization, and pro-bullying attitudes; the effects were smaller as compared to grade 4, yet significant (d ≥ 0.20). Finally, using Olweus dichotomous definition of bullies and victims, results showed that the odds of being a victim were 1.93 times higher for a control student than for a KiVa student in grade 4. Overall, the findings provide evidence of the effectiveness of the program in Italy; the discussion will focus on factors that influenced successfully the transportability of the KiVa program in Italy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11121-016-0690-z

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 123

Authors
Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E.
Affiliations
University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Nocentini, Annalaura
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2016-08-03
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
1012-1023
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2478297826
Cited by
123
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 1
FWCI
20.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education for Peace and Conflict Resolution
Keywords
KiVa program, bullying intervention, school bullying, bullying victimization, empathy toward victims, program effectiveness, Italian schools, primary and lower secondary students
MeSH terms
Child, Female, Humans, Italy, Male, Schools, Students, Program Evaluation, Evidence-Based Practice, Bullying

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review