Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 367

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire: Evaluation in Visually Impaired

Gothwal, Vijaya K., Sumalini, Rebecca, Irfan, Shaik Mohammad, Giridhar, Avula, Bharani, Seelam·2013·Optometry and Vision Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore the psychometric properties of the revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ) in children with visual impairment (VI) using Rasch analysis. METHODS: One hundred fifty Indian children with VI between 8 and 16 years (mean age, 11.6 years; 69% male; mean acuity in the better eye of 0.80 logMAR [Snellen, 20/126]) were administered the revised OBVQ. The 40-item revised OBVQ was developed to assess victimization (i.e., being bullied) and bullying (bullying others) in normally sighted schoolchildren. Only 16 items are used for Rasch analysis and are divided into two parts: I (victimization, eight items) and II (bullying others, eight items). Separate Rasch analysis was conducted for both parts, and the psychometric properties investigated included behavior of rating scale, extent to which the items measured a single construct (unidimensionality by fit statistics and principal component analysis [PCA] of residuals); ability to discriminate among participants' victimization and bullying behaviors (measurement precision as assessed by person separation reliability [PSR] minimum recommended value, 0.80); and targeting of items to participants' victimization and bullying. RESULTS: Response categories were misused for both parts I and II, which required repair before further analysis. Measurement precision was inadequate for both parts (PSR, 0.64 for part I and 0.19 for part II), indicating poor discriminatory ability. All items fit the Rasch model well in part I, indicating unidimensionality that was further confirmed using PCA of residuals. However, an item misfit in part II that required deletion following which the remaining items fit and PCA of residuals also supported unidimensionality. Targeting was -0.58 logits for part I, indicating that the items were matched well with the participants' victimization. By comparison, targeting was suboptimal for part II (-1.97 logits). CONCLUSIONS: In its current state, the revised OBVQ is not a valid psychometric instrument to assess victimization and bullying among children with VI.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/opx.0b013e3182959b52

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 367

Metadata

Authors
Gothwal, V. K., Sumalini, R., Irfan, S. M., Giridhar, A., & Bharani, S.
Venue
Optometry and Vision Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08
Volume
90
Issue
8
Pages
828-835
ISSN
1040-5488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036678909
Cited by
367
References
3
FWCI
37.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire: Evaluation in Visually Impaired. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/opx.0b013e3182959b52
The paper
Gothwal, V. K., Sumalini, R., Irfan, S. M., Giridhar, A., & Bharani, S. (2013). Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire: Evaluation in Visually Impaired. Optometry and Vision Science. https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0b013e3182959b52

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.