Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ) : Establishing A Reliable and Valid Measure

Journal of School Violence
ISSN: 1538-8220 (Print) 1538-8239 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20
Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire

(BPBQ): Establishing a Reliable and Valid Measure
Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, Kelly Hodgson Summers, Lyndsay N. Jenkins &

Lisa Davidson Becker
To cite this article: Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, Kelly Hodgson Summers, Lyndsay N.
Jenkins & Lisa Davidson Becker (2016) Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ):
Establishing a Reliable and Valid Measure, Journal of School Violence, 15:2, 158-188, DOI:
10.1080/15388220.2014.964801
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.964801
Accepted author version posted online: 25

Sep 2014.
Published online: 10 Oct 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 136
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsv20
Download by: [Monash University Library] Date: 02 March 2016, At: 06:16
Journal of School Violence, 15:158–188, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 online
DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2014.964801
Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire

(BPBQ): Establishing a Reliable
and Valid Measure
MICHELLE KILPATRICK DEMARAY

Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 06:16 02 March 2016
KELLY HODGSON SUMMERS

Leadership, Educational Psychology, & Foundations Department, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, Illinois, USA
LYNDSAY N. JENKINS
Department of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA
LISA DAVIDSON BECKER

DeKalb, Illinois School District, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
The current study further establishes the reliability and valid-

ity of the Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ),
a self-report survey that allows for an examination of partici-
pation in various bullying participant role behaviors including
bully, assistant to the bully, victim, defender of the victim, and
outsider. The study included 801 sixth- through eighth-grade stu-
dents. The results of the study confirmed a five-factor structure
(Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, and Outsider). Internal con-
sistency of the subscales was high and item-subscale correlations
were all significant and moderate to high. Correlations among
the BPBQ subscales and with additional measures, including
the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition,
Self-Report of Personality (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), the Social
Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and an unpublished
victim measure (Demaray & Malecki, 2003), provided evidence
of concordant, convergent, and divergent validity. Gender and
Received June 30, 2013; accepted September 8, 2014.

Address correspondence to Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, Psychology Department,
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. E-mail: mkdemaray@niu.edu
158
Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 159
grade level differences were also investigated among the bullying

participant behaviors.
KEYWORDS Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire,

BPBQ, bullying, roles, BASC, SSRS, self-report, validity, factor
analysis
Bullying is a significant problem worldwide, including in many schools in

the United States (Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010). Bullying behaviors
are complex and need to be understood within the larger social context in
which they take place (Swearer & Doll, 2001; Swearer & Espelage, 2011;
Unnever & Cornell; 2003). Because bullying is a social phenomenon, many
other participants aside from the bully and the victim are likely to be present.
Given that perhaps the largest number of participants in bullying situations
are not the bully or the victim, but other participants and bystanders, leading
experts agree that more research must focus on bystander participant roles
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003;
Thornberg, 2007; Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2004).
Bystanders have been defined as “those who witness bullying and other
acts of violence but are not themselves acting in the role of bully or vic-
tim” (Twemlow et al., 2004, p. 222). Although an increased amount of
recent research has focused on bystanders, much more work still needs
to be conducted to understand the measurement of bystander behaviors
and their potential influence on bullying prevention and intervention efforts.
Measurement of bullying behaviors is complicated (Furlong, Sharkey, Felix,
Tanigawa, & Green, 2010; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Much of the debate and
issues relevant to assessment of bullying have focused on measures that
assess students who bully and students who are victims. Given the impor-
tance of focusing on the broader social context of bullying and the role
of bystanders, there are very few instruments designed to assess participa-
tion in other bullying behaviors, aside from that of the bully and victim,
in the bullying phenomenon. Thus, the goal of the current study was to
further the development of a self-report survey that allows for assessment
of participation in a wider range of bullying behaviors, including bystander
behaviors.
Bystanders’ Roles in Bullying Situations

Olweus (1993) discussed a “circle of bullying” that includes not only the
bully and the victim, but followers of the bully, supporters of the bully,
disengaged onlookers, possible defenders of the target, and defenders.
Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiainen (1996) have
conducted work in Finland and found evidence for differing participant
160 M. K. Demaray et al.
roles in bullying situations including the bully, the victim, reinforcers of the
bully, assistants to the bully, defenders of the victim, and outsiders. Although
other participant roles have been identified–for example, Twemlow and col-
leagues (2004) identified seven bystander roles from a more psychodynamic
perspective–the roles by Salmivalli and colleagues (1996) appear to be the
most cited roles in the literature. Salmivalli et al. (1996) described reinforcers
of the bully as individuals who reinforce the bully’s behaviors by attending to
it positively via watching, laughing, or using encouraging gestures; assistants
to the bully as those participants who do not start the bullying but will join
in when someone else starts the behaviors; defenders of the victim are par-
ticipants who try to stop the bullying and console the victim; and outsiders
are participants who avoid bullying and do not take sides with anyone.
Assessment of Participant Roles

One reason for the inconsistent study of participant roles beyond bully and
victim may be the lack of a reliable and valid measurement instrument
that includes assessment of bystander behaviors. A review of the litera-
ture revealed only one measure, the Participant Role Questionnaire (PRQ;
Salmivalli et al., 1996), which adequately assesses bystander roles. The Center
for Disease Control and Prevention published a compendium of assessment
tools for bullying and also only identified the PRQ as including assessment
of bystanders (Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011). The PRQ is a 15-item sur-
vey that utilizes peer nominations to categorize students into the following
bystander roles: bully, assistant to the bully, reinforcer to the bully, defender
of the victim, and outsider. When administering the PRQ, students are asked
to think of situations in which someone has been bullied. Then they are
presented with 15 items describing different ways to behave in such situa-
tions and asked to rate on a 3-point, Likert-type scale how often classmates
behave in the ways described.
The PRQ is a solid first step in exploring different participant roles.
However, the measure has been used predominantly with students in
Finland, which limits generalizability to U.S. populations. A second limita-
tion of the PRQ is the 3-point, Likert-type scale, which limits responses to the
never, sometimes, or often categories prescribed by the tool. Additionally, the
PRQ uses peer nomination, which is a useful and widely accepted methodol-
ogy for identifying participant roles. However, this nomination methodology
also limits use of the measure. While nomination methodology may be
feasible to use in U.S. grade schools, where peers likely spend a large part of
the day grouped with 20 to 30 classmates, it becomes less useful with large
middle- and high-school populations. The PRQ methodology (i.e., peer nom-
ination) has been adapted and administered as an interview (Sutton & Smith,
1999) and as a self-report measure (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, &
Lagerspetz, 1999). However, the PRQ was not developed as a self-report
rating scale and needs more evidence of reliability and validity to be used in
this manner.
The current study aimed to develop a measure, the Bullying Participant
Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ; Summers & Demaray, 2008) that expands
upon current measurement of behaviors in the bullying situation. Similar
to the work of Salmivalli, the goal was to develop a measure of bullying
participant role behaviors that included: bully, assistant to the bully, vic-
tim, defender to the victim, and outsider. However, the construct of assistant
to the bully in the current study includes behaviors that reflect a combi-
nation of Salmivalli’s roles of assistant to the bully and reinforcer of the
bully. Thus, in the current study the conceptualization of assistants to the
bully includes youth who may actually assist the bully in the behavior (e.g.,
hold down a student) or reinforce the bullying behavior (e.g., encourage the
bully to engage in the behavior). Other studies have combined the assistant
and reinforcer of the bully categories using variations of Salmivalli’s mea-
sure indicating these categories are part of the same “probullying” category
(Goossens, Olthof, & Dekker, 2006; Sutton & Smith, 1999). However, these
studies have still relied on peer nomination versus a rating scale format.
The measure in the current study, the BPBQ, also allows for a wider
range of responses by way of an expanded self-report, Likert-type scale.
The BPBQ uses a 5-point Likert scale versus the PRQ’s 3-point Likert scale
allowing for more variability in responses. Another key difference between
the PRQ and the BPBQ is that although the PRQ allows for classification
of various roles, it does not provide information about the degree to which
respondents exhibit or have been subjected to various behaviors related to
different participant roles in bullying. That is, the PRQ places students in
a category where the BPBQ provides a score for the student for behaviors
associated with that category. Recently, some additional self-report tools have
added a “bystander” or “witness” component to measures of bullying, but
they do not break that group down into behaviors associated with different
roles (e.g., assistant, defender) of the bystander (Cheng, Chen, Liu, & Chen,
2011; Wiens & Dempsey, 2009). Thus, there is still a void that exists with
respect to measuring participation in the different bullying participant role
behaviors in the United States. Understanding more about these roles may
aid in intervention development.
The BPBQ (Summers & Demaray, 2008) was created to fill this gap.
It should be noted that preliminary work developing the measure was com-
pleted as part of a pilot study (N = 203) and a dissertation study (N = 250).
The brief results from these preliminary works are described in the Method
section under the description of the measure. The goal of the current study
was to follow up on this initial work with a larger sample and additional
analyses. Thus, the goal of the current study was to refine the BPBQ and
provide evidence of reliability and validity so that researchers and school
service personnel alike could use the tool with confidence.
Research Predictions
It was predicted that the BPBQ would have a five-factor structure (i.e., Bully,
Assistant, Victim, Defender, Outsider) with evidence of high internal con-
sistency and moderate to high significant correlations between the items
and their respective subscale scores. Patterns of significant relations were
also expected among the subscales. Specifically, it was predicted that the
bully and assistant scores would correlate moderately given they are assess-
ing similar probullying constructs. It was also predicted that both the bully
and assistant scores would have low to moderate correlations with the vic-
tim score because of the overlap of bullying and victimization behaviors
(e.g., bully-victims). Lastly, it was expected that the victim, defender, and
outsider scores would demonstrate small to moderate relations among each
other as previous research has indicated this pattern may be present among
participant role behaviors (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
Validity. Three additional measures were utilized to document evi-
dence of concordant, convergent, and divergent validity: a measure of social
emotional behaviors, a measure of social skills, and a measure of victim-
ization. The social-emotional behaviors assessed included four maladaptive
behaviors (i.e., negative attitude to school, negative attitude to teachers,
depression, and anxiety) and three adaptive behaviors (i.e., interpersonal
relations, relations with parents, and self-esteem). It was expected that the
bully and assistant scores would have similar patterns of relations among
the variables and that both scores would be associated with more negative
attitudes to school and teachers based on the research focused on bully-
ing behaviors and school connectedness (Cunningham, 2007; Raskauskas,
Gregory, Harvey, Rifshana, & Evans, 2010). It was also expected that the
bully and assistant scores would be associated with more negative rela-
tionships with parents (Rigby, 1993). It was expected that the bully and
assistant roles would be associated with higher levels of depression (Seals &
Young, 2003; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, & Mickelson, 2001). No relation
was expected for the bully and assistant scores with anxiety and self-
esteem. It was expected that the victim score would be significantly related
to all of the social-emotional indicators including more negative attitudes
towards teachers and school, lower interpersonal relations, poor parental
relationships, higher levels of depression and anxiety, and lower self-esteem
(Cunningham, 2007; Rigby, 1993; Seals & Young, 2003; Swearer et al., 2001).
It was hypothesized that defenders and outsiders would have fewer social
and emotional problems and that defenders may have more positive adaptive
skills (i.e., interpersonal relations, relations with parents, and self-esteem).
It was predicted that bullies and assistants would demonstrate significant
negative correlations with positive social skills (i.e., cooperation, assertion,
empathy, and self-control; Chui & Chan, 2013; Espelage, Mebane, & Adams,
2004; Gini, 2006; Larke & Beran, 2006; Wang, Chen, Xiao, Ma, & Ahang,
2012). Victims were also expected to have lower social skills (Champion,
Vernberg, & Shipman, 2003; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Unnever & Cornell,
2003). Based upon previous research, it was also predicted that defenders
would have higher social skills of empathy and cooperation (Gini, Albiero,
Benelli, & Altoe, 2008). Given the lack of prior research on outsiders, no
predictions were made for this bully role.
It was predicted that the BPBQ Victim subscale score would demonstrate
a moderate to high correlation with another victimization measure. Because
research has indicated that victim measurements often correlate with other
participant roles, it was predicted that the correlations between the victim-
ization measure and the bully, assistant, defender, and outsider scores would
be significant and low (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

Participant role behaviors and gender and grade differences. The study
also investigated gender and grade level differences associated with dif-
ferent bullying participant roles. With regard to gender, it was predicted
that boys would report being bullied and would be categorized as bullies
more often than females (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Demaray &
Malecki, 2003; Espelage & Holt, 2001). It was also predicted that males would
be classified as assistants more often than females (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
Conversely, it was predicted that females would report defending victims and
would be outsiders more frequently than males (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Trach,
Hymel, Waterhouse, & Neale, 2010). When investigating grade level differ-
ences, it was predicted that sixth graders would have higher victimization
scores than eighth graders, while eighth graders would have higher bullying
scores (Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Espelage & Holt, 2001; Nansel et al., 2001)
and that younger participants, sixth graders, would be more likely to defend
victims than older participants, eighth graders (Trach et al., 2010).
METHOD
Participants
The study included 801 sixth- through eighth-grade students from a middle
school located in a suburban area in the Midwest. Approximately 49% of
the participants were male and 51% were female. The majority (81%) of the
participants were White. The school had a total of 845 students enrolled
(95% participation rate). The school consisted of 15.5% of students receiving
free or reduced lunch and 0.6% were limited in English proficiency. For the
factor analyses, the sample was randomly split into two separate samples
(n = 393 and n = 408). The total sample demographics and demographics
by these two random samples are detailed in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Participant Characteristics by Total Sample and the CFA and PCA Samples
Total sample CFA sample PCA sample

N = 801 n = 408 n = 393
Characteristics n % n % n %
Grade
Sixth 270 33.7 133 32.6 137 34.9
Seventh 264 33.0 128 31.4 136 34.6
Eighth 266 33.2 147 36.0 119 30.3
Missing 1 0.1 1 0.3
Gender
Boy 392 48.9 197 48.3 195 49.6
Girl 404 50.4 210 51.5 194 49.4
Missing 5 0.6 1 0.2 4 1.0
Ethnicity
African American 25 3.1 14 3.4 11 2.8

Asian American 9 1.1 5 1.2 4 1.0
Hispanic American 44 5.5 21 5.1 23 5.9
White 650 81.1 336 82.5 314 79.9
Multiracial 52 6.5 23 5.6 29 7.4
Native American 5 0.6 4 1.0 1 0.3
Missing 16 2.0 5 1.2 11 2.8
Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; PCA = principal components analysis. The school make up was
3.9% African American, 1.2% Asian American, 6.4% Hispanic American, 84% White, 0.8% Native American,
and 3.2% multiracial. Chi-square analyses indicated there were no significant differences between CFA
and PCA groups in demographic variable membership.
Measures
Four measures were completed by each student: the BPBQ (Summers &
Demaray, 2008), the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second
Edition, Self-Report of Personality (BASC-2 SRP; Reynolds & Kamphaus,
2004), the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and
an additional unpublished measure of victimization.
The Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire. The BPBQ
(Summers & Demaray, 2008) is intended to measure children and
adolescents’ perceptions of bullying in their school and includes assessment
of behaviors associated with five different participant roles: bully, victim,
defender of the victim, assistant to the bully, and outsider. In initial work
the BPBQ was called the Bully Participant Role Survey (BPRS); the title
was changed to more accurately reflect that it assesses behaviors associated
with bullying roles. The content of the BPBQ was based on the literature
regarding bystanders of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Salmivalli, Huttunen,
& Lagerspetz, 1997; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004) and was reviewed by
graduate students and professors in school psychology. Expert reviewers
provided informal feedback on the items. The BPBQ was initially developed
and tested on a pilot study sample (N = 203) of middle school students,
which revealed five factors (Bully, Assistant to the Bully, Victim, Defender
of the Victim, and Outsider) accounting for 55% of the variance. The BPBQ
was refined and utilized in a sample of 250 middle school students and in
this sample four factors (Bully, Victim, Defender of the Victim, and Outsider)
were obtained that accounted for 55% of the variance. In that sample, the
Assistant to the Bully factor was not retained as many of the items double
loaded on the Bully factor. Thus, for the current study, the BPBQ was again
refined, additional items were added, especially focusing on the Assistant
factor, and the version utilized in this study consisted of 80 items that were
each hypothesized to load onto one of the five proposed factors (Bully,
Victim, Assistant, Outsider, and Defender). Each of these factors is discussed
next.
The Bully Subscale assesses the frequency of participation in behaviors
that are considered to be bullying whereas the Assistant Subscale assesses

the willingness to encourage, join in, or aid a bully in bullying others. The
Victim Subscale assesses the frequency of behaviors that one experiences
being bullied. The Defender Subscale assesses the frequency of participation
in behaviors related to defending on behalf of a victim, and the Outsider
Subscale contains items about the frequency with which a student acknowl-
edges bullying occurs but chooses to actively ignore it. To complete the
BPBQ students are provided with a definition of bullying (i.e., frequent,
power differential, and negative intent). Then, they rate the frequency in
which they engaged in (i.e., bullying, assistant, defender, and outsider items)
or experienced (i.e., victim) a behavior in the last 30 days on a 5-point
response scale (0 = never, 1 = 1 to 2 times, 2 = 3 to 4 times, 3 = 5 to
6 times, 4 = 7 or more times). The goal of the current study was to provide
evidence of reliability and validity of the BPBQ and these data are provided
in the Results section.
Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, Self-Report
of Personality. The BASC-2 SRP (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) is a rat-
ing scale that measures the personality and self-perceptions of students
ages 8-25. There are two types of questions in the scale. Some ques-
tions require a true or false response, but other questions are rated on
a 4-point frequency scale, ranging from never to almost always. It has
been determined that the SRP is written at approximately a third-grade
reading level and has three forms for three different age levels: child
(8 to 11), adolescent (12 to 21), and college (18 to 25). The SRP-A,
for adolescents, was used in the current study and has five composite
scales, School Problems, Internalizing Problems, Inattention/Hyperactivity,
Emotional Symptoms Index, and Personal Adjustment.
The BASC-2 SRP standardization sample consisted of 1,900 children for
the SRP-A form. The sample was stratified by gender, age, SES, race/ethnicity,
and geographic region based on the 2001 Current Population Survey.
According to the manual, the BASC-2 SRP-A subscale scores have demon-
strated strong evidence of internal consistency with coefficients ranging from
.71 to .86. Test-retest reliability (14-51 days) was demonstrated with a median
correlation coefficient of .75 and subscale coefficients ranging from .63 to .84.
Validity for the SRP-A was demonstrated via intercorrelations of the scales
and factor structure of the scales. Overall, the scales were moderately cor-
related with each other in the expected direction. In addition, two types of
factor analysis, covariance structure analysis and principal-axis factor analysis
demonstrated clear factor loadings. The SRP-A demonstrated adequate corre-
lations with other self-report measures of depression and anxiety, as well as
the first edition of the BASC SRP-A. In the current data collection the follow-
ing subscales were given: Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers, Anxiety,
Depression, Attention Problems, Hyperactivity, Interpersonal Relations, and
Self-Esteem. For validity purposes, the Attention Problems and Hyperactivity
subscales were not utilized.

The Social Skills Rating System. The SSRS (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) is a
rating scale measure used to assess student social behaviors that may affect
a number of areas in the student’s life. Parent, teacher, and student forms
are available. There are two versions of the student ratings form, one for
Grades 3-6 (Elementary) and the other for Grades 7-12 (Secondary). The cur-
rent study utilized the Elementary (Grade 6; 34 items) or Secondary (Grades
7 and 8; 39 items) student versions of the SSRS. Students are asked to rate
their own behaviors sampling from four subscales or content areas. These
content areas include Cooperation, Assertion, Responsibility, Empathy, and
Self-Control. For each item, students are asked to circle how often (fre-
quency) a social behavior occurs and additionally, for Grades 7-12, how
important each behavior is (importance). Answers are circled based upon
a scale with frequency scores ranging from 0 = never to 2 = very often.
Similarly, the importance scores range from 0 = not important to 2 = critical.
Student self-rating scales were standardized based on a sample of
4,170 children. Geographical location, ethnicity, disability status, and com-
munity size were representative of the U.S. population as a whole. In addi-
tion, the SSRS demonstrates sound reliability and validity. Alpha coefficients
were .83 for the total scale and ranged from .51 to .77 for the subscales.
Test-retest reliability was measured four weeks after the original sampling
and ranged from .52 to .66. Validity evidence consisted of factor analysis,
which yielded the four social skills subscales presented above. In addition,
the SSRS student form was compared to the Child Behavior Checklist-Youth
Self Report Form (CBCL-YSR; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and the Piers-
Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (PHCSCS; Piers, 1984). Correlations with
the PHCSCS scales were low to moderate and there were negative and
significant correlations with the CBCL-YSR.
Victim measure. A 12-item victimization questionnaire was also admin-
istered to assess victimization. This measure was based on items from the
Bully Survey (Swearer, 2001) and The National School Crime and Safety
Survey-Revised Student Form (Kingery, 2001). A prior version of the measure
was published in a study investigating social support and bullying (Demaray

& Malecki, 2003). Additional items were added and some wording was
slightly changed from the version published in the Demaray and Malecki
(2003) study. The measure was adapted so that students would not only be
able to rate the frequency in which they experienced each behavior, but also
the degree to which it made them feel bad and whether they felt that the
aggressor made them feel scared or worried. Only the frequency scores were
utilized in the current study. For frequency ratings, students were presented
with each item then asked, “How often have these things happened to you
at school in the last month?” Students responded to items by circling if they
experienced the behavior on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = 1 time a month,
3 = 2+ times a month, 4 = 1 time a week, and 5 = 2+ times a week). Some
sample items are, “Someone called me names,” “Someone said mean things
behind my back,” and “Someone hit, kicked, pushed, attacked, or physically
hurt me in another way.” In the current study, the alpha coefficient was for
the measure was .88.
Procedure
Data were collected as part of a school-wide evaluation of social-emotional
issues. Parents were notified that self-report surveys would be completed.
No parents requested that their child abstain from participation. University
IRB approval was obtained to use the dataset for the current study. No names
or identifying information were located in the electronic dataset. Students
completed the surveys over a 3-day period in mid-October. The unpublished
victimization form bullying scale was administered on the first day, the BASC-
2 on the second day, and the BPBQ and SSRS on the third day. Language Arts
teachers administered the surveys and students completed the surveys during
Language Arts time. If students were identified as needing help reading, items
were read aloud by special education teachers.
RESULTS
Factor Analysis
The sample was randomly divided in half and on one half of the sample a
principal component factor analysis was conducted and on the other half a
confirmatory factor analysis was performed.
Principal component factor analysis. Item-level analyses were con-
ducted on all BPBQ items. Item means and standard deviations were
examined. Items were also examined for range restriction, skewness, and
kurtosis. These data are presented in Table 2. A principal component factor
analysis (PCA) was conducted. An oblique (Promax) rotation was applied
because it was hypothesized that the factors are correlated with one another.
TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Items on the Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire
Principal Components Analysis Sample
Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis
1. I have called another student bad names 390 0.79 1.05 1.57 2.07
2. I have made fun of another student 391 0.66 0.92 1.75 3.29
3. I have purposely left out another student 390 0.27 0.64 3.16 12.44
4. I have ignored another studenta 390 0.79 0.99 1.56 2.38
5. I have pushed, punched or slapped another student 392 0.38 0.87 2.78 7.72
6. I have bumped into another student on purposea 390 0.40 0.79 2.55 7.60
7. I have told lies about another student 392 0.18 0.55 3.93 17.89
8. I have tried to make people dislike another student 392 0.15 0.53 4.73 26.11
9. I have stolen things from another student 391 0.10 0.48 6.17 42.01
10. I have damaged or broken something that was 392 0.11 0.39 4.94 31.86
another student’sa
11. I have verbally threatened another studenta 390 0.16 0.55 4.65 25.46
12. I have made another student do things they didn’t 392 0.10 0.41 5.31 34.95
want to doa
13. I have thrown things at another student 391 0.30 0.76 3.24 11.35
14. I have tripped another student on purposea 392 0.20 0.63 3.98 18.01
15. I have said bad things about another student 390 0.46 0.87 2.40 5.98
16. I have talked about someone behind their back 387 0.65 1.01 1.83 2.94
17. When someone else has started spreading rumors, I 389 0.27 0.60 3.03 12.18
joined ina
18. When someone was ignoring another student, I 389 0.21 0.51 3.52 17.68
joined ina
19. When someone was being pushed, punched, or 389 0.25 0.65 3.52 14.61
slapped, I stopped to watcha
20. When someone else has started pushing or shoving a 389 0.08 0.44 6.83 52.21
student, I joined ina
21. When someone was making fun of another student, I 389 0.16 0.49 4.58 28.01
joined in
22. When someone was verbally threatening another 390 0.06 0.36 8.09 77.26
student, I joined in
23. When someone was making a student do things they 390 0.04 0.44 9.64 102.56
did not want to do, I joined ina
24. When someone else was telling lies about another 390 0.09 0.37 5.34 38.68
student, I joined ina
25. When someone bumped into another student, I 389 0.12 0.51 5.73 37.48
joined in
26. I have made fun of someone when they were 390 0.09 0.38 5.67 41.25
pushed, punched, or slapped
27. I have made fun of someone who was being called 390 0.12 0.49 5.49 35.13
mean names
28. When someone else broke something that belonged 389 0.12 0.41 4.60 28.77
to another student, I stopped to watch
29. When someone else tripped another student on 390 0.27 0.62 3.42 15.48
purpose, I laughed
30. When someone else knocked books out of another 386 0.11 0.48 5.38 32.86
student’s hands on purpose, I laughed
31. When someone else pinched or poked another 388 0.17 0.63 4.63 23.13
(Continued)
TABLE 2 (Continued)
32. When someone else threw something at another 388 0.11 0.46 5.59 35.84
33. I have been called mean names 391 1.10 1.19 1.12 0.46
34. I have been made fun of 390 1.01 1.18 1.28 0.89
35. I have been purposely left out of something 391 0.60 0.99 1.92 3.36
36. I have been ignored 390 0.79 1.10 1.65 2.12
37. I have been pushed around, punched, or slapped 391 0.51 0.98 2.27 4.74
38. I have been pushed or shoved 390 0.58 0.97 2.12 4.46
39. People have told lies about me 389 0.76 1.11 1.62 1.91
40. People have tried to make others dislike me 388 0.53 0.99 2.14 4.01
41. I have been threatened by others 391 0.38 0.83 2.74 7.80
42. People have damaged or broken something that was 388 0.32 0.78 3.18 10.80
minea
43. I have had things taken from me 391 0.42 0.82 2.41 6.28
44. People have made me do things I did not want to doa 390 0.21 0.64 3.92 17.15
45. I have been tripped by another student on purposea 391 0.28 0.74 3.39 12.61
46. I have had my books knocked out of my hands on 390 0.17 0.57 4.45 23.10
purposea
47. I have been pinched or pokeda 390 0.71 1.14 1.80 2.42
48. I have had something thrown at mea 388 0.49 1.00 2.39 5.05
49. I tried to make people stop spreading rumors about 389 0.92 0.98 1.28 1.71
othersa
50. When I saw someone being mean to others, I 388 0.65 0.92 1.75 3.28
threatened to tell an adult if it didn’t stopa
51. I told someone that picking on others is mean and 386 0.82 0.93 1.35 1.98
they should not do ita
52. I tried to make someone feel better after they were 387 1.16 1.06 1.06 0.85
picked ona
53. I tried to become friends with someone after they 386 0.77 0.98 1.43 1.81
were picked on
54. I encouraged someone to tell an adult after they were 384 0.82 0.98 1.39 1.74
picked on
55. I defended someone by telling people that a rumor is 387 1.00 1.06 1.08 0.67
not truea
56. I defended someone who was being pushed, 388 0.69 1.05 1.68 2.21
punched, or slapped
57. When I saw someone being picked on, I told an 388 0.59 0.94 1.83 3.13
adulta
58. I defended someone who had things purposely taken 388 0.57 0.90 1.95 4.02
from them
59. I defended someone who was being called mean 388 0.80 0.96 1.50 2.35
names
60. I tried to include someone if they were being 386 0.89 0.95 1.34 1.95
purposely left out
61. I helped someone who had their books knocked out 387 0.71 0.91 1.51 2.36
of their hands on purpose
62. I helped someone who was purposely tripped 386 0.54 0.88 1.96 3.86
63. When I saw someone being physically harmed, I told 388 0.53 0.85 1.82 3.48
an adult
64. I defended someone who I thought was being tricked 386 0.61 0.84 1.61 3.01
on purpose
(Continued)
TABLE 2 (Continued)
65. I ignored lies people spread about other studentsa 383 1.03 1.12 1.14 0.71
66. I ignored it when I saw someone threatening another 383 0.50 0.86 2.14 4.96
studenta
67. I pretended not to notice when another student was 387 0.38 0.74 2.43 6.75
being pushed, punched, or slappeda
68. I pretended not to notice when things were taken or 388 0.35 0.72 2.61 7.88
stolen from another student
69. I pretended not to notice when rumors were being 388 0.41 0.76 2.45 7.21
spread about other students
70. I ignored it when I saw someone making fun of 387 0.39 0.74 2.61 8.34
another student
71. I pretended not to notice a situation that purposely 385 0.37 0.67 2.31 6.94
left someone out

72. I ignored it when someone was calling another 387 0.42 0.75 2.25 5.93
student bad namesa
73. I ignored it when I saw someone breaking or 385 0.32 0.65 2.63 8.85
damaging another student’s things
74. I have walked away when I saw someone else being 384 0.40 0.77 2.59 7.93
picked ona
75. I pretended not to notice when someone else 384 0.31 0.67 2.93 10.47
knocked the books out of another student’s hands on
purposea
76. I pretended not to notice when someone else tripped 385 0.30 0.62 2.79 10.64
another student on purpose
77. I ignored it when someone else pinched or poked 386 0.46 0.81 2.33 6.41
another student
78. I ignored it when someone threw something at 387 0.39 0.73 2.62 8.61
another student
79. I ignored it when someone else tricked another 385 0.43 0.79 2.50 7.39
student
80. I pretended not to notice when someone was 387 0.32 0.71 3.01 10.94
destroying another student’s property
Note. The range on all items = 4.
a
Items were dropped from final version.
Initially, the analysis was run without forcing any factors. An examination of
the scree plot indicated that there were five to seven factors. The analysis
was run again forcing five factors. The factor structure accounted for 52% of
the variance. Upon inspection of the factor loadings, five items loaded on
factors they were not intended to load on (Items 65, 6, 11, 4, 44). Thus, these
five items were deleted and the analysis was run again forcing five factors.
All items loaded on the five factors as intended and accounted for 54% of
the variance. At this point items were deleted that loaded the lowest on each
factor to shorten the length of the scale and reduce each subscale to 10 items
each for a total of 50 items (deleted Items 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24,
42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 66, 67, 72, 74, 75).
Finally, the factor analysis was run again forcing five factors. This final
factor analysis accounted for 60% of the variance. The (KMO) measure of
.88 indicated a high sampling adequacy for the factor analysis. Bartlett’s test
of sphericity was significant (p < .001), indicating that the factor model is
appropriate. An analysis of the pattern matrix indicated that the strongest
factor consisted of the outsider items followed by defender, victim, assistant
to the bully, and bully items. Table 3 provides a summary of the items
that load onto each of the five factors along with the internal consistency
alpha for each factor. There were no items that cross-loaded onto any other
factor above .38. The lowest loading item on the Bully scale, item 5, cross-
loaded on the Assistant scale at .38. Alpha coefficients for each subscale are
presented in Table 3; they ranged from .88 to .94.
Confirmatory factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted using the other half of the split data set (n = 408) to verify the
five-factor structure developed during the PCA stage. AMOS 20.0 maximum
likelihood estimation was used to provide robust estimates of the parame-
ters. The five latent variables (bully, assistant, victim, defender, and outsider)
were correlated because the literature suggests that there is overlap among
the bullying participant behaviors (Salmivalli, 2010). Only 314 cases (77% of
split data set) had complete data and were included in the analyses since
AMOS requires no missing data when requesting modification indices.When
conducting model respecification, only error covariances within a factor
would be considered (e.g., a covariance between the error term of bully
item and the error term of a victim item would not be added). Additionally,
consideration of the extent to which an item was assessing a similar, but
not identical bullying behavior was also given. For example, some items
were worded similarly (e.g., “I have been purposely left out of something”
and “I have been ignored”) so it is logical that the error terms associated
with these items would be correlated. Some items assess similar, but not
synonymous, behaviors, so leaving both items in the model and adding a
covariance between error terms would be more logical than deleting one of
the items.
Model fit was evaluated based on six measures of fit: χ 2 , relative
χ (CMIN/df), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Standardized Root Mean
2
Residual (SRMR), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and

Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI). These fit indices were chosen based
on recommendations by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008). When eval-
uating fit, it is desirable to have a nonsignificant χ 2 value (Barrett, 2007);
however, there are some cautions when interpreting model fit using the χ 2.
The χ 2 is sensitive to sample size where large samples are more likely to
have a significant χ 2 , indicating poor fit, where, in fact, the data may fit the
model better than indicated by the χ 2 value (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu &
Bentler, 1995; Kenny & McCoach, 2003); therefore, it is important to con-
sider other information when evaluating the fit of a model. Carmines and
McIver (1981) considered relative χ 2 ratios between 3 and 1 to be indicative
of acceptable fit when comparing the hypothetical model to the sample data.
TABLE 3 Final Factor Structure Loadings for PCA Sample
Items Loading
Bully (alpha = .88)

8. I have tried to make people dislike another student .80
15. I have said bad things about another student .74
7. I have told lies about another student .72
13. I have thrown things at another student .67
3. I have purposely left out another student .65
2. I have made fun of another student .65
9. I have stolen things from another student .65
16. I have talked about someone behind their back .63
1. I have called another student bad names .60
5. I have pushed, punched, or slapped another student .49

Assistant (alpha = .92)
26. I have made fun of someone when they were pushed, punched, or .83
slapped
25. When someone bumped into another person, I joined in .83
29. When someone else tripped another student on purpose, I laughed .79
30. When someone else knocked books out of another student’s hands on .75
purpose, I laughed
27. I have made fun of someone who was being called mean names .74
22. When someone was verbally threatening another student, I joined in .73
31. When someone else pinched or poked another student, I joined in .72
32. When someone else threw something at another student, I joined in .62
28. When someone else broke something that belonged to another .62
student, I stopped to watch
21. When someone was making fun of another student, I joined in .61
Victim (alpha = .93)
34. I have been made fun of .87
35. I have been purposely left out of something .86
33. I have been called mean names .82
36. I have been ignored .81
39. People have told lies about me .80
40. People have tried to make others dislike me .80
43. I have had things taken from me .70
38. I have been pushed or shoved .69
41. I have been threatened by others .67
37. I have been pushed around, punched, or slapped .64
Defender (alpha = .94)
62. I helped someone who was purposely tripped .86
58. I defended someone who had things purposely taken from them .86
59. I defended someone who was being called mean names .84
61. I helped someone who had their books knocked out of their hands on .82
purpose
64. I defended someone who I thought was being tricked on purpose .81
56. I defended someone who was being pushed, punched, or slapped .81
53. I tried to become friends with someone after they were picked on .77
60. I tried to include someone if they were being purposely left out .76
63. When I saw someone being physically harmed, I told an adult .76
54. I encouraged someone to tell an adult after they were picked on .73
(Continued)
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Items Loading
Outsider (alpha = .94)

76. I pretended not to notice when someone else tripped another student .86
on purpose
78. I ignored it when some threw something at another student .84
80. I pretended not to notice when someone was destroying another .82
student’s property
77. I ignored it when someone else pinched or poked another student .82
79. I ignored it when someone else tricked another student .82
69. I pretended not to notice when rumors were being spread about other .79
students
68. I pretended not to notice when things were taken or stolen from .79
another student
70. I ignored it when I saw someone making fun of another student .78
73. I ignored it when I saw someone breaking or damaging another .76
student’s things
71. I pretended not to notice a situation that purposely left someone out .72
Guidelines suggest that models may be considered to have adequate fit if CFI
values are greater than .90 (Browne & Cudeck, 1989), SRMR values below
.05 (Byrne, 1998). RMSEA values should not exceed .10, with values between
.05 and .08 indicating adequate fit and values between .08 and .10 suggesting
mediocre fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1989). The PNFI is also reported, but there
are not widely accepted cutoffs for this index. Mulaik and colleagues (1989)
suggested that values near .50 or greater are acceptable.
The CFA was completed in two phases. First, based on the principal
components analysis (PCA), a five-factor model was tested including all
50 items (10 items for each of the five factors) without any error covari-
ances. Results indicated that the model did not fit the data well, χ 2 (1165) =
3459.80, p < .001, CFI = .80, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .079, 90% CI [.076, .082],
PNFI = .69. Modification indices were examined and indicated that adding
25 covariances would each reduce the χ 2 by at least 20. Upon examining
these suggested covariances, the addition of 20 error covariances seemed
appropriate based on substantive reasons. The model was analyzed again
and output indicated that the model fit reasonably well. Though the χ 2 was
significant (which was expected given the large sample) and the CFI value
was just below the cutoff, the CMIN/df, SRMR, RMSEA, and PNFI were all
in acceptable ranges, χ 2 (1145) = 2668.89, p < .001, CFI = .88, SRMR =
.06, RMSEA = .065, 90% CI [.062, .068], PNFI = .74. Table 4 contains the
standardized, unstandardized, p values, and standard errors associated with
the path coefficients of Model 2. The results of the CFA confirm the five-
factor structure including the Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, and Outsider
subscales.
TABLE 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Standardized, Unstandardized, and Standard Errors of

Path Coefficients
Item and latent variable B β SE
Bully
1. I have called another student bad names 1.61 .75 .16
2. I have made fun of another student 1.33 .70 .14
3. I have purposely left out another student 0.86 .70 .09
5. I have pushed, punched or slapped another student 0.97 .66 .11
7. I have told lies about another student 0.73 .68 .08
8. I have tried to make people dislike another student 0.72 .61 .08
9. I have stolen things from another student 0.50 .55 .06
13. I have thrown things at another student 0.80 .63 .09
15. I have said bad things about another student 1.19 .73 .12
16. I have talked about someone behind their back 1.00 .58
Assistant
21. When someone was making fun of another student, I 0.89 .75 .08
joined in
22. When someone was verbally threatening another student, 1.01 .70 .07
I joined in
25. When someone bumped into another person, I joined in 1.15 .70 .08
26. I have made fun of someone when they were pushed, 0.80 .66 .07
punched, or slapped
27. I have made fun of someone who was being called mean 0.94 .68 .08
names
28. When someone else broke something that belonged to 0.78 .61 .07
another student, I stopped to watch
29. When someone else tripped another student on purpose, 1.15 .55 .10
I laughed
30. When someone else knocked books out of another 0.94 .63 .08
student’s hands on purpose, I laughed
31. When someone else pinched or poked another student, I 1.00 .73 .07
joined in
32. When someone else threw something at another student, 1.00 .58
I joined in
Victim
33. I have been called mean names 1.41 .70 .12
34. I have been made fun of 1.52 .77 .12
35. I have been purposely left out of something 1.34 .81 .10
36. I have been ignored 1.31 .77 .11
37. I have been pushed around, punched or slapped 1.21 .77 .10
38. I have been pushed or shoved 1.36 .79 .11
39. People have told lies about me 1.70 .75 .11
40. People have tried to make others dislike me 1.44 .86 .10
41. I have been threatened by others 1.00 .76 .08
43. I have had things taken from me 1.00 .68
Defender
53. I tried to become friends with someone after they were 0.87 .76 .06
picked on
54. I encouraged someone to tell an adult after they were 0.82 .72 .06
picked on
(Continued)
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Item and latent variable B β SE
56. I defended someone who was being pushed, punched, or 0.85 .69 .06
slapped
58. I defended someone who had things purposely taken 0.89 .79 .05
from them
59. I defended someone who was being called mean names 0.89 .76 .06
60. I tried to include someone if they were being purposely 0.92 .79 .06
left out
61. I helped someone who had their books knocked out of 0.92 .79 .06
their hands on purpose
62. I helped someone who was purposely tripped 0.93 .84 .05
63. When I saw someone being physically harmed, I told an 0.91 .79 .06
adult
64. I defended someone who I thought was being tricked on 1.00 .81
purpose
Outsider
68. I pretended not to notice when things were taken or 0.79 .63 .06
stolen from another student
69. I pretended not to notice when rumors were being spread 0.85 .65 .07
about other students
70. I ignored it when I saw someone making fun of another 1.01 .74 .07
student
71. I pretended not to notice a situation that purposely left 0.87 .70 .06
someone out
73. I ignored it when I saw someone breaking or damaging 0.99 .77 .06
another student’s things
76. I pretended not to notice when someone else tripped 1.00 .84 .05
another student on purpose
77. I ignored it when someone else pinched or poked 1.01 .80 .06
another student
78. I ignored it when someone else threw something at 0.87 .75 .05
another student
79. I ignored it when someone else tricked another student 0.92 .71 .06
80. I pretended not to notice when someone was destroying 1.00 .85
another student’s property
Note. All path coefficients were significant p < .001.
Evidence of Reliability
Once the final 50 items on the BPBQ had been confirmed, the two samples
were combined to provide overall evidence of reliability and validity based
on the total sample (N = 801). The prediction of high internal consistency
was supported with alpha coefficients of .88 for the Bully subscale, .92 for the
Assistant subscale, .94 for the Victim subscale, .94 for the Defender subscale,
and .94 for the Outsider subscale. As predicted, item to subscale total cor-
relations for the total sample were all moderate to high and significant, p <
.01, and are presented in Table 5. Item-subscale correlations ranged from r =
.51 to .80 for the Bully subscale, r = .68 to .85 for the Assistant subscale, r =
.73 to .84 for the Victim subscale, r = .76 to .85 for the Defender subscale,
and r = .75 to .85 for the Outsider subscale.
TABLE 5 Item-Subscale Correlations for the Total Sample
Bully Assistant Victim Defender Outsider
BPBQ 1 .80∗∗ BPBQ 21 .73∗∗ BPBQ 33 .81∗∗ BPBQ 53 .78∗∗ BPBQ 68 .79∗∗
Note. PCA = principal components analysis; BPBQ = Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire.
∗∗
p < .01.
Evidence of Validity
Correlations among the BPBQ subscales provided some evidence of con-
struct validity and are provided in Table 6. As predicted, the BPBQ subscales
were significantly related in a predictable pattern. As expected, the correla-
tion between the Bully and Assistant subscales was large, r = .60, p < .01.
The correlations between the Bully and Victim subscales and the Assistant
and Victim subscales were moderate, r = .32, p < .01, and small, r = .19, p <
.01, respectively. The Victim and Defender subscales were moderately cor-
related, r = .41, p < .01. Lastly, small correlations were found between the
Outsider and Victim scores, r = .25, p < .01, and the Outsider and Defender
scores, r = .21, p < .01.
Evidence of Concordant, Convergent, and Divergent Validity

In order to examine additional evidence of validity of the BPBQ, correla-
tions were conducted among the BPBQ subscales, select BASC-2 subscales,
the SSRS subscales, and a nonpublished victimization measure. Due to the
number of correlations conducted (i.e., 60), a Bonferonni correction was uti-
lized to maintain the overall p = .05. Thus, correlations were only noted as
significant if p < .0008. See Table 7 for means and standard deviations on the
BASC-2, SSRS, and Victimization scores and correlations among the validity
measure scores and each of the BPBQ subscales.
Participant roles and social-emotional behaviors. As expected, the
BASC-2 correlations with the Bully and Assistant scores revealed similar
patterns. For the Bully and Assistant scores there were significant rela-
tions with the following subscales: Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers,
Depression, Relations with Parents, and Self-Esteem (Bully score only). The
correlations were positive with the maladaptive scales and negative with
the adaptive scales. There was a significant correlation between all of the
TABLE 6 Correlations Among the Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire Subscales for
the Total Sample
Bully −
Assistant .60∗∗ −
Victim .32∗∗ .19∗∗ −
Defender .07 .11∗∗ .41∗∗ −
Outsider .20∗∗ .26∗∗ .25∗∗ .21∗∗ −
∗∗
p < .01.
TABLE 7 Correlations Among BRPS Subscale Scores and BASC-2 and SSRS Subscale Scores
and Victimization Score
BPBQ subscales
Measures N M SD Bully Assistant Victim Defender Outsider
Behavioral Emotional Scale Children

Attitude to school 761 51.63 10.39 .29∗ .23∗ .28∗ .01 .11
Attitude to teachers 758 49.25 10.58 .38∗ .29∗ .33∗ .08 .13∗
Anxiety 760 51.14 11.01 .12 .12 .29∗ .21∗ .04
Depression 756 50.80 9.66 .22∗ .21∗ .52∗ .23∗ .14∗
Relations with 761 50.52 10.10 −.29∗ −.22∗ −.29∗ −.07 −.10
parents
Interpersonal 761 50.06 10.04 −.10 −.09 −.58∗ −.20∗ −.17∗
relations
Self-esteem 757 49.88 9.64 −.14∗ −.11 −.37∗ −.17∗ −.15∗
Social Skills Rating System
Cooperation 773 15.32 3.30 −.44∗ −.36∗ −.27∗ −.04 −.13∗
Assertion 772 12.36 3.17 .01 −.00 −.14∗ .10 −.04
Empathy 777 15.10 3.46 −.31∗ −.26∗ −.17∗ .09 −.13∗
Self-control 757 11.92 3.37 −.32∗ −.22∗ −.20∗ .02 −.07
Victim measure 668 19.47 8.10 .31∗ .15∗ .57∗ .24∗ .16∗
Note. The first four BASC-2 subscales measure problematic behavior and the last three (Relations with
Parents, Interpersonal Relations, and Self-Esteem) measure adaptive behaviors.
∗
p < .0008 (Bonferroni correction was utilized to keep the overall p < .05 for the correlations in this
table).
BASC-2 subscales and the BPBQ Victim subscale score. Again, the cor-
relations were significant and positive with the maladaptive scales and
significant and negative with the adaptive scales. Though not predicted,
the Defender subscale was significantly and positively related to Anxiety
and Depression; and was significantly and negatively related to adaptive
skills (e.g., Interpersonal Relations, and Self-Esteem) counter to predictions.
No specific predictions were made for the Outsider subscale; it was sig-
nificantly and positively related to Attitude to Teachers and Depression,
and significantly and negatively related to Interpersonal Relations and
Self-Esteem.
Participant roles and social skills. Correlations with the SSRS revealed a
similar pattern for the Bully and Assistant scores with significant and nega-
tive correlations with Cooperation, Empathy, and Self-Control (no relation
with Assertion). Significant and negative relations were predicted for all
of the SSRS subscales. The Victim score was significantly and negatively
associated with all of the SSRS subscales: Cooperation, Assertion, Empathy,
and Self-Control. Opposite expectations, the Defender score was not signifi-
cantly associated with any SSRS subscales. Lastly, the Outsider subscale was
significantly and negatively associated with Cooperation and Empathy.
Participant roles and victimization. Correlations among the BPBQ
Subscale scores of Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, Outsider and the
Total Victim Score from the unpublished victimization scale were all sig-
nificant, p < .0008, and positive, and ranged from small to large, r = .31,
.15, .57, .24 and .16, respectively. As expected, the largest correlation was
.57 between the BPBQ Victim score and the Victimization measure total
score.
Gender and Grade Level Difference in Bullying Participant Role

Behavior Scores
See Table 8 for means and standard deviations on the BPBQ subscales by
gender and grade level. A Gender (male, female) × Grade (sixth, seventh,
eighth) MANOVA was conducted to investigate gender and grade level dif-
ferences for each participant role score. The dependent variables in the
analysis were the BPBQ Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, and Outsider
subscale scores. For significant differences, Cohen’s d was utilized to calcu-
late effect sizes. Effect sizes were considered small in magnitude if d was
.20 or smaller and large in magnitude if d was .80 and larger; otherwise they
were considered medium in magnitude (Cohen, 1988).
The main effect of gender was significant, Wilks’ lambda = .965, F(5,
663) = 4.79, p < .001. The follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant differ-
ences for the Bully, Assistant, and Victim Subscale Scores, F(1, 667) = 13.92,
p < .001, F(1, 667) = 11.08, p < .001, and F(1, 667) = 9.63, p < .01,
respectively. Examination of means indicated that boys had higher scores as
compared to girls for each subscale (Cohen’s d = .28, .26, and .24, respec-
tively). These results supported the prediction that boys would have higher
Bully and Assistant scores, but did not support the prediction that girls would
have higher scores on the Defender and Outsider subscales.
The main effect of grade level was significant, Wilks’ lambda = .97,
F(5, 1326) = 1.95, p < .05. The follow up ANOVAs indicated a significant
difference for the Bully subscale score, F(2, 667) = 3.62, p < .05. Post hoc
Scheffé analyses indicated that on the Bully subscale eighth graders scored
significantly higher compared to sixth graders (Cohen’s d = .27). This result
TABLE 8 Means and Standard Deviations by Gender, Grade, and Total Sample on the BPBQ
Subscales
Gender Grade n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Female
6th 123 2.84 3.35 1.11 2.56 6.41 7.69 6.85 8.05 2.99 5.13
7th 109 2.79 3.52 .73 1.39 5.07 6.37 7.67 7.63 3.80 5.00
8th 118 3.58 4.34 1.11 2.62 5.52 6.35 6.49 7.07 3.53 5.35
Total 350 3.07 3.77 .99 2.28 5.70 6.86 6.98 7.59 3.43 5.16
Male
6th 106 3.81 5.10 1.93 3.58 7.72 9.83 7.80 8.57 4.71 8.24
7th 111 4.26 6.21 1.68 4.10 7.95 9.54 6.73 7.30 3.98 6.26
8th 106 5.44 6.71 2.08 5.29 7.16 8.23 5.51 7.73 2.56 4.80
Total 323 4.50 6.07 1.90 4.37 7.61 9.21 6.68 7.91 3.75 6.62
Total
6th 229 3.29 4.27 1.49 3.09 7.02 8.75 7.29 8.29 3.79 6.79
7th 220 3.53 5.10 1.21 3.10 6.52 8.23 7.20 7.46 3.89 5.66
8th 224 4.46 5.65 1.57 4.13 6.30 7.33 6.03 7.39 3.07 5.11
Total 673 3.76 5.05 1.43 3.47 6.62 8.12 6.84 7.74 3.58 5.90
supported the prediction that eighth graders would score higher on the Bully
subscale, but did not support the predictions that sixth graders would score
higher on the Victim and Defender subscales.
DISCUSSION
In the current study, both principal components and confirmatory factor

analyses confirmed the BPBQ (Summers & Demaray, 2008) consists of five
distinct factors: Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, and Outsider. The bul-
lying participant role behavior scores also correlated among each other in
an expected pattern, providing additional evidence of construct validity. For
example, the bully and assistant scores were highly correlated. This cor-
relation makes sense as both these subscales assess probullying behavior.
In addition, the correlation between the victim and defender scores was
moderately correlated. This relation makes sense given the overlap of bully-
ing behaviors and victimization experiences identified in the literature (e.g.,
bully-victims).
The BPBQ also demonstrated evidence of reliability via high reliability
coefficients (i.e., ranging from .88 to .94). Additionally, item-subscale total
correlations were moderate to high and significant. Although these data pro-
vide some support for reliability of the BPBQ, additional work is needed to
assess the test-retest reliability of the measure.
Correlations among the BPBQ subscale scores and other measures pro-
vided some evidence of concordant, convergent, and divergent validity. For
example, as expected, the bully and assistant scores demonstrated similar

patterns among the measures utilized for validity. The bully and assistant
scores were significantly and negatively related to negative attitudes towards
school and teachers, which was expected due to research that has demon-
strated a low level of school connectedness by students who display bullying
behaviors (Cunningham, 2007; Raskauskas et al., 2010). Bully and assistant
scores were also positively associated with internalizing problems, such as
depression and low self-esteem (bully scores only; Seals & Young, 2003;
Swearer et al., 2001). Lastly, these bully and assistant behaviors were asso-
ciated, as expected, with more negative parental relationships (Rigby, 1993).
Victim scores were, as expected, significantly correlated with every social-
emotional outcome, which highlights the negative outcomes associated
with victimization (Cunningham, 2007; Haynie et al., 2001; Kumpulainen,

Rasanen, & Puura, 2001; Rigby, 1993; Seals & Young, 2003; Swearer et al.,
2001).
Although it was predicted that the defender score would be associated
with more positive social emotional behavior, this was not found in the cur-
rent study. In fact, the defender score was positively associated with anxiety
and depression and negatively associated with positive interpersonal rela-
tions and positive self-esteem. Upon reflection these findings make sense, as
students might be engaging in other behaviors besides just defender behav-
iors. For example, given the defender and victim scores were moderately
correlated it is not a surprise that the defender score is correlated with
some negative outcomes. Future research may want to attempt to use the
BPBQ scores to classify participants (i.e., defenders only, victims only, victim-
defenders) and investigate characteristics of these groupings of participants.
Future research may need to examine the personality and social-emotional
characteristics of defenders only so that researchers can learn more about
the specific sets of skills these students possess.
Very little research has investigated outsiders in bullying so no spe-
cific predictions were made regarding the relation of the outsider score to
social-emotional behaviors except that it was expected that the outsider score
would be related to fewer social and emotional problems. In the current
study, the outsider score was positively associated with a negative attitude
to teachers and depression and negatively associated with good interper-
sonal relations and positive self-esteem. Given outsiders, by definition, are
student who see bullying but ignore it, it makes sense that there are a wide
variety of reasons that students may ignore bullying. These reasons may be
probully (e.g., they deserve it) or provictim (e.g., that is wrong but I don’t
know what to do; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Additionally, a construct such as
low social connectedness or low social support might moderate the asso-
ciation between outsider behaviors and social-emotional behaviors. More
research is needed on the motivation and cognitions behind behaviors that
are consistent with outsiders to more thoroughly understand this role and
associated social-emotional behaviors.
The current study also investigated the relations among the bully role
scores and social skills. As expected bully and assistant behaviors were asso-
ciated with less cooperation, less empathy, and less self-control (Chui &
Chan, 2013; Espelage et al., 2004; Gini, 2006; Larke & Baran, 2006; Wang
et al., 2012). The fact that bully and assistant scores were not associated
with less assertion makes sense given these youth are actively engaging
in bullying behaviors or behaviors that support bullying and may require
them to be assertive. Victim experiences were associated with lower social
skills in all areas assessed, including cooperation, assertion, empathy, and
self-control. Defending behaviors were not associated with any of the social
skills; this was opposite the prediction that they would have higher levels of
empathy and cooperation. Again, this may be because the youth engaging
in defending behaviors might also engage in or experience other behaviors
(e.g., bullying and/or victimization). Outsider behaviors were significantly
associated with less cooperation and empathy.
The current study also investigated gender and grade level differences
in the bullying participant scores. Bully and assistant behaviors were sig-
nificantly higher, as expected, for boys (Card et al., 2008; Demaray &
Malecki, 2003; Espelage & Holt, 2001; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Boys were
also found to experience higher rates of victimization. Although this was not
expected, prior studies have found boys to experience more physical vic-
timization than females (Paquette & Underwood, 1999) and that may have
contributed to the results. It was predicted that females would report defend-
ing victims and being outsiders more frequently than males (Salmivalli et al.,
1996; Trach et al., 2010); however, this was not found in the current study.
Future research is needed to clarify gender differences in all of the bullying
participant behaviors in bully situations.
When investigating grade level differences the only significant differ-
ence found was that eighth graders had significantly higher bully scores
than sixth graders. This finding was predicted given prior research (Demaray
& Malecki, 2003; Espelage & Holt, 2001; Nansel et al., 2001); however,
additional research is needed to definitively understand developmental dif-
ferences. The current study only included three grades at the middle school
level. Additional research on other grade levels, as well as longitudinal
research would be helpful to understand the developmental trajectory of
bullying participant behaviors.
Limitations and Future Research

Limitations in the current study deal directly with the BPBQ as an assess-
ment tool. The measure has only been investigated with a middle school
population and future research should study the use of the measure with
younger and older age students. The scale is also lengthy for schoolwide
administration and may require significant instructional time to administer.
The measure does not assess every type of bullying behavior. For exam-
ple, a new area of bullying research that has received significant attention is
cyberbullying. Researchers have shown that bullying that takes place outside
of school can also have a profound effect on student adjustment (Klomeck,
Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007). The BPBQ only assesses
bullying behaviors that take place in a more traditional face-to-face experi-
ence or indirectly via exclusion or spreading of rumors, which is a limitation
as the psychological and socioecological impact of bullying that takes place
outside of school cannot be minimized.
An additional limitation of the BPBQ is that many of the items had
low mean and high kurtosis values. Although this is a limitation of the
BPBQ, many other measures of bullying exhibit similar patterns on individual
items. Beran and Stewart (2008) used the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire
(Olweus, 1996) in their research and found that several items had low means
and high kurtosis values. In the current study, this pattern occurred on items
where socially desirable responding may have been more likely to occur,
such as on Question 9: “I have stolen things from another student.” This may
be an issue that is inherent in self-report measures of bullying and clearly
warrants further investigation.
Although every attempt was made to balance questions on the BPBQ
with respect to different types of bullying behaviors (i.e., verbal, physical,
relational); however, the scales do combine these types of bullying. By com-
bining these somewhat distinct types of bullying behaviors, gender and grade
differences in bullying that may have otherwise emerged were not found.
An additional limitation is that the BPBQ was not used to classify stu-
dents in distinct categories but rather the tool was used to assess the degree
to which an individual demonstrates various behaviors within each par-
ticipant role. Other researchers have applied cut score methodologies to
similar self-report measures and used those scores to classify students. For
example, Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham (2000) used a cut score method
for victim identification using 0.5 SD above the mean for inclusion in the
“victim” category. Still, others have examined multiple methods for classi-
fication of participant roles such a z-scores and percentage cut-offs and
determined there is no gold standard for classification of participant roles
(Goossens et al., 2006). It is possible the BPBQ could be used to determine
absolute classifications of participant roles using one or more of the method-
ologies explored by other researchers, therefore future research could focus
on determining cut scores so the BPBQ could also be used as a true classifi-
cation tool. This type of classification would allow for a better understanding
of the relations among social-emotional behavior and social skills for each
of these groups. Additionally, to aid in interpretation, future research could
collect normative data on the tool to aid users in identifying students that
score high or low on the various participant role behaviors.
Finally, the measures used to demonstrate evidence of validity were
based on data that were accessible and not necessarily chosen based on
theory. Future research may want to include measures for validity purposes
based on more theoretical associations with bullying behaviors. Additionally,
evidence of validity could be obtained by comparing the BPBQ to the PRQ.
The PRQ is the only published bully role measure that includes various roles
such as bully, reinforcer and assistant to the bullying, victim, defender, and
outsider.
Implication of Findings
First and foremost, a new assessment instrument that has evidence of reli-
ability and validity was created. Although further refinement of this tool is
needed, the BPBQ fills a gap in current bullying research in that the tool
allows for examination of other participants in bullying situations beyond
just bully and victim. Implications for the development of such a tool are
potentially far-reaching. For example, it is possible that school-based person-
nel such as principals, counselors, social workers, and school psychologist
could utilize the BPBQ to more closely examine participant role behaviors
in their schools. School-based results could be used to implement specific
bullying interventions aimed at increasing rates of defending behaviors while
simultaneously decreasing rates of bullying and victimization.
Similarly, researchers might be able to utilize the BPBQ for examining
participant role behaviors in other populations throughout the United States
aside from students in suburban areas of the Midwest. This may allow for a
more detailed investigation of potential gender, grade, or racial differences
among participant roles. In addition, future research could expand the study
of bullying to include multiple variables within a social ecological context.
Participants other than just bullies and victims warrant further examination.
The study of all participant roles is important, but the role of the defender
warrants special attention. These are the students who are taking a stand
against bullying. More information is needed about the defenders’ social
skills, peer relationships, family relationships, how they feel about their
school and community, and their academic achievement. There is much
more to be learned about the social ecology of this particular participant
role. By learning more about the characteristics of defenders, practitioners
can attempt to teach other students to display similar characteristics, which
might decrease the overall levels of bullying in schools.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors declare that they have no competing interests with this research.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the child behavior checklist
and revised behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department
of Psychiatry.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42, 815–824. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significant tests and goodness of fit
in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Beran, T., & Stewart, S. (2008). Teachers’ and students’ reports of physical and
indirect bullying. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54, 242–244.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices
for covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical

Psychology, 37, 62–83. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and
indirect aggression during childhood and adolescents: A meta-analytic review
of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child
Development, 79, 1185–1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables.
In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues
(pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Champion, K., Vernberg, E., & Shipman, K. (2003). Nonbullying victims of bullies:
Aggression, social skills, and friendship characteristics. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 24, 535–551. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.08.003
Cheng, Y. Y., Chen, L. M., Liu, K. S., & Chen, Y. L. (2011). Development and
psychometric evaluation of the school bullying scales: A Rasch measure-
ment approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 200–216.
doi:10.1177/0013164410387387
Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. (2013). Association between self-control and school
bullying behaviors among Macanese adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37,
237–242. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.12.003
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek. S. (2010). Predictors
of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic
investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65–83. doi:10.1037/a0020149
Cunningham, N. J. (2007). Level of school bonding to school and perception of the
school environment by bullies, victims, and bully victims. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 27, 457–478. doi:10.1177/0272431607302940
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and
importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and
bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471–489.
doi:10.1037/h0084129
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adoles-
cence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse,
2, 123–142. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_08
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S., & Adams, R. (2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying:
Toward an understanding of complex associations. In D. L. Espelage & S. M.
Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social ecological perspective
on prevention and intervention (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimiza-
tion: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 32, 365–383.
Furlong M. J., Sharkey J. D., Felix E. D., Tanigawa D., & Green J. G. (2010). Bullying
assessment: A call for increased precision of self-reporting procedures. In S.
R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in
schools: An international perspective (pp. 329–346). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gini, G. (2006), Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong?
Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528–539. doi:10.1002/ab.20153
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. (2008). Determinants of adoles-
cents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal
of Adolescence, 31(1), 93–105.
Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. H. (2006). New participant role scales:
Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their
validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 343–357. doi:10.1002/ab.20133
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System manual. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., Vivolo, A. M. (2011) Measuring bullying victim-
ization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment
tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/pdf/bullyCompendiumbk-a.pdf
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., et al. (2001).
Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49. doi:10.1177/0272431601021001002
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjust-
ment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 349–359. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.349
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on mea-
sures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10,
333–351. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
Kingery, P. (2001). The national school crime and safety survey–Revised student form
1. Washington, DC: Hamilton-Fish Institute.
Klomeck, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M.
S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40–49.
doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18
Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2012). The relationship between bullying, victimiza-
tion, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadoles-
cents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41–58. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9
Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric disorders and the
use of mental health services among children involved in bullying. Aggressive
Behavior, 27, 102–110.
Larke, I. D., & Beran, T. N. (2006) The relationship between bullying and social skills
in primary school students. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 38–51.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.
D. (1989). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 105,

430–445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt,
P. (2001). Bully behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,
2094–2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway:
Research Center for Health Promotion (KEMIL Center), University of Bergen.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissem-
ination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young ado-
lescents’ experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242–266. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/23093677
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dom-
inance, and victimization during the transition from primary to sec-
ondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280.
doi:10.1348/026151002166442
Piers, E. V. (1984). Revised Manual for the Piers-Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale.
Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Raskauskas, J. L., Gregory, J., Harvey, S. T., Rifshana, F., & Evans, I. M. (2010).
Bullying among primary school children in New Zealand: Relationships with
prosocial behaviour and classroom climate. Educational Research, 52, 1–13,
doi:10.1080/00131881003588097
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. B. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children,
Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and parents as
a function of peer relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501–514.
doi:10.1080/00221325.1993.9914748
Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology:
Four questions for school service providers and social developmental research.
School Psychology Review, 32, 384–400.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 15, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007
Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (1997). Peer networks and
bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305–312.
doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00040
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1999). Self-
evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as
predictors of adolescents’ participation in bullying situations. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268–1278. doi:10.1177/0146167299258008.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their rela-
tions to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms,
and behavior in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 28, 246–258. doi:10.1080/01650250344000488
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relation-
ship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence,
38(152), 735–747.
Summers, K., & Demaray, M. K. (2008). Bullying Participant Behaviors
Questionnaire. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.
Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adap-
tation of the participant role approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97–111.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:2<97::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-7
Swearer, S. M. (2001). The Bully Survey (Unpublished manuscript). The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Swearer, S. M, & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework.
Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 7–23. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_02
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). A social-ecological framework of bullying
among youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North
American schools (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
Swearer, S. M., Song, S. Y., Cary, P. T., Eagle, J. W., & Mickelson, W. T. (2001).
Psychosocial correlates in bullying and victimization: The relationship between
depression, anxiety, and bully/victim status. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2,
95–121. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_07
Thornberg, R. (2007). A classmate in distress: Schoolchildren as bystanders and
their reasons for how they act. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 5–28.
doi:10.1007/s11218-006-9009-4
Trach, J., Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T., & Neale, K. (2010). Bystander
responses to school bullying: A cross-sectional investigation of grade and
sex differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 114–130.
doi:10.1177/0829573509357553
Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the
social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. Annals
New York Academy of Sciences, 1036, 215–232. doi:10.1196/annals.1330.014
Unnever, J., & Cornell, D. (2003). The culture of bullying in middle school. Journal
of School Violence, 2, 5–27. doi:10.1300/J202v02n02_02
Wang, F. M., Chen, J. Q., Xiao, W. Q., Ma, Y. T., & Zhang, M. (2012). Peer physical
aggression and its association with aggressive beliefs, empathy, self-control,
and cooperation skills among students in a rural town of China. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 27(16), 3252–3267. doi:10.1177/0886260512441256.
Wiens, B. A., & Dempsey, A. (2009). Bystander involvement in peer victimization:
The value of looking beyond aggressors and victims. Journal of School Violence,
8, 206–215. doi:10.1080/15388220902910599

Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ) : Establishing A Reliable and Valid Measure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ) : Establishing A Reliable and Valid Measure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of School Violence

ISSN: 1538-8220 (Print) 1538-8239 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire

Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, Kelly Hodgson Summers, Lyndsay N. Jenkins &

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.964801

Accepted author version posted online: 25

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 136

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire

MICHELLE KILPATRICK DEMARAY

KELLY HODGSON SUMMERS

LISA DAVIDSON BECKER

The current study further establishes the reliability and valid-

Received June 30, 2013; accepted September 8, 2014.

grade level differences were also investigated among the bullying

KEYWORDS Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire,

Bullying is a significant problem worldwide, including in many schools in

Bystanders’ Roles in Bullying Situations

Assessment of Participant Roles

be significant and low (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

Total sample CFA sample PCA sample

African American 25 3.1 14 3.4 11 2.8

that are considered to be bullying whereas the Assistant Subscale assesses

subscales were not utilized.

was published in a study investigating social support and bullying (Demaray

Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis

Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis

Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis

left someone out

Residual (SRMR), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and

TABLE 3 Final Factor Structure Loadings for PCA Sample

Bully (alpha = .88)

5. I have pushed, punched, or slapped another student .49

Outsider (alpha = .94)

TABLE 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Standardized, Unstandardized, and Standard Errors of

Item and latent variable B β SE

Item and latent variable B β SE

TABLE 5 Item-Subscale Correlations for the Total Sample

Bully Assistant Victim Defender Outsider

Evidence of Concordant, Convergent, and Divergent Validity

Bully Assistant Victim Defender Outsider

Measures N M SD Bully Assistant Victim Defender Outsider

Behavioral Emotional Scale Children

Gender and Grade Level Difference in Bullying Participant Role

Bully Assistant Victim Defender Outsider

In the current study, both principal components and confirmatory factor

example, as expected, the bully and assistant scores demonstrated similar

with victimization (Cunningham, 2007; Haynie et al., 2001; Kumpulainen,

Limitations and Future Research

for covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical

schools: An international perspective (pp. 329–346). New York, NY: Routledge.

D. (1989). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 105,

You might also like