The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A content analysis of school anti-bullying policies in England: signs of progress
Open accessAbstract
Schools in England are required to have an anti-bullying policy.A revised 42-item scoring scheme was used to report a content analysis of 200 anti-bullying policies.On average, school policies had 61% of items.Chi-square comparisons found an increase in policy coverage from 2008 to 2022, notably for mentioning cyber bullying and many types of bias-based bullying; but comparisons are limited by different sampling procedures.Despite good coverage in some areas, fewer than 25% of policies mentioned responsibilities of other school staff, suggested how to help the pupil(s) doing the bullying to change their behaviour, gave advice to parents about bullying, or discussed specific powers to deal with cyberbullying and out-of school bullying.For 131 schools, correlations of self-report scores on bullying victimisation and perpetration with the overall policy score were negative but very small.Ways to improve school policy coverage, and the impact they may have, are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
A content-analysis of 200 anti-bullying policies in UK schools revealed policy coverage should be improved to better highlight responsibilities of other school staff and include guidance on dealing with cyberbullying specifically.
“Evidence from a content-analysis of 200 anti-bullying policies in UK schools further reinforce these concerns, and revealed policy coverage should be improved to better highlight the responsibilities of other school staff and include guidance on dealing with cyberbullying specifically (97).”
From A thematic analysis of adolescents’ perceptions of cyberbullying and cyberaggression: definitional distinctions and educational gaps (2026) · cites this paper as [97]
Citations
Cites
A content analysis of school anti-bullying policies: a follow-up after six years
Smith, P. K., Kupferberg, A., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Samara, M., Bosley, S., & Osborn, R. (2012) · Educational Psychology in Practice · doi:10.1080/02667363.2011.639344 · Cited by 88
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 10.1002/9781118482650.ch17 · DOI
- 10.1108/JACPR-12-2017-0336 · DOI
- 10.1177/0044118X221077712 · DOI
- 10.1080/02671520701809866 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.psicod.2020.11.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.irle.2017.03.001 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781118482650.ch48 · DOI
- 10.1080/02667363.2016.1161599 · DOI
- 10.1080/02667360701661165 · DOI
- 10.1080/01443410303215 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smith, E. J., Rai, R., Scase, M. O., & Wilson, A. D. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1746672
Metadata
- Authors
- Kidwai, I., & Smith, P. K.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Peter K
- Venue
- Educational Psychology in Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-09-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 0266-7363 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5839
- OpenAlex
- W4386492232
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Educational Psychology in Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Goldsmiths (University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
- Keywords
- bullying prevention, cyberbullying, bias-based bullying, policy coverage, bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, parenting advice, England
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
