The DOI matches its Crossref record; 144 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: (528362010-001)
Open accessAbstract
Bullying is becoming an ever more pressing issue for schools, daycare centers, politicians and the public. Everyone agrees that bullying is a serious problem and initiatives are urgently called for to stamp it out. This Campbell Systematic Review studied the effects of anti-bullying programs in schools. The conclusion is that programs generally work and bullying is reduced on average by around 20%. A total of 89 reports were of sufficient quality to be included in the systematic review. The 89 reports describe 53 different studies. However, nine studies did not provide enough data to allow the calculation of an effect size and were, therefore, not included in the final meta-analysis. The overall analysis is therefore based on a total of 44 studies. The 44 different studies were carried out between 1983 and mid-2009 and came from 16 different countries. The included studies were either randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, age-cohort studies or other controlled studies. Furthermore, the systematic review clearly states that future evaluations should measure the children's situation before and after an anti-bullying program. This should apply to the experimental group as well as the control group to get the most accurate results possible. Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND School bullying has serious short-term and long-term effects on children's physical and mental health. Various anti-bullying programs have been implemented world wide and, more rarely, evaluated. Previous narrative reviews, summarizing the work done on bullying prevention, as well as previous meta-analyses of anti-bullying programs, are limited. The definition of school bullying includes several key elements: physical, verbal, or psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim; an imbalance of power (psychological or physical), with a more powerful child (or children) oppressing less powerful ones; and repeated incidents between the same children over a prolonged period. School bullying can occur in school or on the way to or from school. It is not bullying when two persons of the same strength (physical, psychological, or verbal) victimize each other. OBJECTIVES This report presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce school bullying perpetration and victimization (i.e. being bullied). The authors indicate the pitfalls of previous reviews and explain in detail how the present systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the gaps in the existing literature on bullying prevention. SEARCH STRATEGY In the present report, we go beyond previous reviews by: doing much more extensive searches for evaluations such as hand-searching all volumes of 35 journals from 1983 up to the end of May 2009; searching for international evaluations in 18 electronic databases and in languages other than English; and focusing only on programs that are specifically designed to reduce bullying and not aggressive behavior (i.e. the outcome variables specifically measure bullying). Leading researchers in the area of school bullying were also contacted via e-mail. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies were included in this review if they evaluated the effects of an anti-bullying program by comparing an experimental group who received the intervention with a control group who did not. The word ‘experimental’ here refers to students who received the program and does not necessarily imply randomization. Four types of research design were included: a) randomized experiments, b) experimental-control comparisons with before and after measures of bullying, c) other experimental-control comparisons and d) quasi-experimental age-cohort designs, where students of age X after the intervention were compared with students of the same age X in the same school before the intervention. Both published and unpublished (e.g. PhD theses) reports were included. Reports concerning an evaluation of a program had to clearly indicate that bullying or victimization were included as outcome measures. Bullying and victimization could be measured using self-report questionnaires, peer ratings, teacher ratings, or observational data. RESULTS We found a total of 622 reports that were concerned with bullying prevention. The number of reports on anti-bullying programs and on the necessity of tackling bullying has increased considerably over time. Only 89 of these reports (describing 53 different program evaluations) could be included in our review. Of the 53 different program evaluations, only 44 provided data that permitted the calculation of an effect size for bullying or victimization. Our meta-analysis of these 44 evaluations showed that, overall, school-based anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing bullying and victimization (being bullied). On average, bullying decreased by 20% – 23% and victimization decreased by 17% – 20%. The effects were generally highest in the age-co
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1963) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,085
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-5664 · Cited by 4,089
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x · Cited by 3,639
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Cited by
Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 · Cited by 1,624
Self-citationHow Effective Are Mentoring Programs for Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence
DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100611414806 · Cited by 889
Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017) · Psychology, Health & Medicine · doi:10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740 · Cited by 804
Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., Komro, K. A., Gibbs, L. F., Magnus, D., & Campbell, R. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008958.pub2 · Cited by 768
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011) · Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research · doi:10.1108/17596591111132873 · Cited by 623
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M.
- Venue
- PsycEXTRA Dataset
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1891-1803 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2562867154
- Cited by
- 667
- References
- 144
- FWCI
- 30.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: (528362010-001). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/e528362010-001
- The paper
- Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: (528362010-001). PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e528362010-001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.