Cited by 186Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The Effectiveness of Educational Interventions on Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ng, Esperanza Debby, Chua, Joelle Yan Xin, Shorey, Shefaly·2022·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Abstract

In consideration of the adverse societal, physical, and psychological impacts of bullying on a child’s development and future, many studies have developed anti-bullying programs and educational interventions to curb bullying occurrences. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine the effectiveness of such educational interventions at reducing the frequencies of traditional bullying or cyberbullying and cybervictimization among adolescents. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Only quantitative studies that reported the effects of educational interventions on reducing the frequencies of traditional bullying or cyberbullying victimization and perpetration were included. Seventeen studies ( N total = 35,694 adolescents, Range child age = 10–18 years) were finalized, and meta-analyses were conducted using a random effect model. Overall, the existing educational interventions had very small to small effect sizes on traditional bullying and cyberbullying perpetration (traditional: standardized mean differences [SMD] = −.30 and cyber: SMD = −.16) and victimization (traditional: SMD = −18 and cyber: SMD = −.13) among adolescents. Type of intervention (i.e., whole school–based or classroom-based), program duration, and presence of parental involvement did not moderate program effectiveness, but cyberbullying programs were more effective when delivered by technology-savvy content experts compared to teachers. Since existing educational interventions were marginally effective in reducing bullying frequencies, further research is needed to identify key moderators that enhance educational programs or develop alternative forms of anti-bullying interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524838020933867

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 81 · Cited by 186

Authors
Ng, E. D., Chua, J. Y. X., & Shorey, S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • KK Women's and Children's Hospital (SG)
Corresponding author
Shorey, Shefaly
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Published
2020-06-26
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
132-151
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
OpenAlex
W3037974849
Cited by
186
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
bullying prevention, bullying prevention programs, educational intervention, traditional bullying, cyberbullying, cyber victimization, cyberbullying perpetration, adolescents, school-based intervention, parental involvement, intervention moderators
MeSH terms
Cyberbullying, Adolescent, Child, Humans, Schools, Program Evaluation, Crime Victims, 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