Cited by 35Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingEducation for Peace and Conflict Resolution

Gender differences in outcomes of bullying prevention programs: A meta-analysis.

Kennedy, Reeve S.·2020·Children and Youth Services Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105506

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kennedy, R. S.
Affiliations
University of New Hampshire (US)
Corresponding author
Kennedy, Reeve S.
Venue
Children and Youth Services Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
119
Pages
105506
ISSN
0190-7409 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3089033967
Cited by
35
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Children and Youth Services Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (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
bullying prevention programs, gender differences, bullying victimization, boys, girls, program effectiveness, school-based intervention, United States

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