See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323736614

Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi-dimensional and Multi-informant

Approach

Article  in  Journal of Happiness Studies · March 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10902-018-9974-2

CITATIONS READS

4 739

4 authors:

Valentina Tobia Andrea Greco

Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele University of Bergamo
32 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   440 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Patrizia Steca Gian Marco Marzocchi

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
98 PUBLICATIONS   2,981 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   1,016 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Preschool intervention with children at risk of developing learning difficulties in mathematics View project

Meta-analytic review on Executive Function cognitive training in preschoolers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Valentina Tobia on 05 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Happiness Stud
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9974-2

RESEARCH PAPER

Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional

and Multi‑informant Approach

Valentina Tobia1   · Andrea Greco2 · Patrizia Steca1 · Gian Marco Marzocchi1,3

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract  Based on a multi-dimensional model of wellbeing in school that includes psy-

chological, cognitive and social components, the aim of this investigation was to (a) ana-
lyse differences based on gender and school level (primary or middle school) in children’s
subjective reports of their school wellbeing, (b) analyse correlates of subjective school
wellbeing considering learning skills, grades and behavioural problems, and (c) investigate
parents’ and teachers’ personal experiences and observations related to children with a low
level of subjective school wellbeing. The sample comprised 1038 third- to eighth-grade
students who completed the Questionnaire on School Wellbeing (QBS; Tobia and Marzoc-
chi in QBS 8-13. Questionari per la valutazione del benessere scolastico e identificazione
dei fattori di rischio [QBS 8-13. Questionnaires for the evaluation of school wellbeing and
the identification of risk factors], Erickson, Trento, 2015a), which investigates the gratifica-
tion obtained by results in school, relationships with teachers and classmates, emotional
attitude towards school, and self-efficacy. The results showed significant gender differences
(e.g., a better relationship with teachers but a poorer emotional attitude towards school for
girls) and lower scores on school wellbeing in middle school students compared to pri-
mary school students. Among primary school students, wellbeing tended to be positively
influenced by learning skills, whereas it was positively influenced by grades and negatively
influenced by behavioural problems among middle school students. Finally, both par-
ents and teachers of children with low levels of school wellbeing described greater feel-
ings of worry, guilt, and tension in relation to the children’s difficulties. Parents reported
more learning and emotional difficulties in these children, whereas teachers reported lower

* Valentina Tobia
valentina.tobia@unimib.it
1
Department of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca, Building U6, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo,
1, 20126 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Piazzale S. Agostino, 2,
24129 Bergamo, Italy
3
Centro per l’Età Evolutiva, Via dei Partigiani, 5, 24121 Bergamo, Italy

13
 V. Tobia et al.

self-awareness. These results may offer insights to inform school policies and interventions
aimed at improving children’s wellbeing.

Keywords  School wellbeing · Child wellbeing · Primary school · Middle school · Multi-
informant questionnaire

1 Introduction

Children’s wellbeing is a topic of interest in social politics. It has emerged as a signifi-

cant, relevant research issue across disciplines, given the increasing demand for research
extending beyond the study of children’s disorders and deficits and placing an emphasis on
their positive attributes and strengths (e.g., Duncan and Chase-Lansdale 2001; Pople and
Mainstone-Cotton 2014). Despite the rapid expansion of literature on this topic, a number
of issues regarding the definition, operationalization and assessment of children’s wellbe-
ing remain.
The first problem associated with examining children’s wellbeing is the lack of a unique
and clear definition. According to Amerijckx and Humblet (2014), this could be overcome
by considering the role of context, because the concept of child wellbeing is context-spe-
cific by nature (Camfield et al. 2010). Although this contention originally referred to his-
torical and cultural features, it could reasonably be applied to different contexts within a
specific historical and cultural frame such as school or family in current Western societies.
Children and adolescents spend approximately one-third of their waking hours at school
most weeks of the year. This implies that school usually has a significant impact on chil-
dren’s wellbeing. It is the primary setting of social and emotional experiences as well as
exposure to adverse events such as struggles with learning, peer rejection, bullying, poor
relationships with teachers, etc. Given the reflections reported above, the present work
aimed to analyse children’s wellbeing in the school context.
Additionally, the concept of children’s wellbeing lacks commonly accepted indicators.
In their review of the literature, Pollard and Lee (2003) distinguished among five distinct
domains of children’s wellbeing—physical, psychological, cognitive, social, and eco-
nomic—and showed that only 2.3% of the articles that they reviewed assessed child well-
being by considering more than three domains, while most of them (80%) measured only
one. Taking into account this observation, the model of school wellbeing used in the pre-
sent study is multi-dimensional, and includes psychological, cognitive and social domains.
In previous research and theoretical contributions, researchers have attempted to define
the concept of school wellbeing multi-dimensionally. Konu and colleagues (Konu et  al.
2002; Konu and Rimpelä 2002) proposed the “school wellbeing model”, which included
four categories of variables related to school wellbeing: school conditions (e.g., school
organization, punishments), social relationships (e.g., teacher-student relationships, peer
relationships), means of self-fulfilment (e.g., value of student work), and health status (e.g.,
psychosomatic symptoms). Additionally, Hascher (2008) attempted to conceptualize and
measure wellbeing at school using a self-report questionnaire that included six dimensions:
positive attitudes towards school, enjoyment in school, positive academic self-esteem,
problems in school, somatic complaints and reactions in school, and depressive mood
towards school. Despite being both context-specific and multi-dimensional, these models
consider only the child’s point of view. This could give an incomplete representation of
children’s experience, as illustrated in the following paragraph.

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

1.1 School Wellbeing: The Importance of a Multi‑informant Approach

In their review, Amerijckx and Humblet (2014) mentioned the value of taking into account
the children’s point of view on their own situation, given the scarcity of subjective reports
from this population, despite the well-documented discrepancies that exist between peo-
ple’s perceptions of children’s wellbeing and children’s own perceptions of their wellbeing
(Ben-Arieh et al. 2009; Fox et al. 2008; Tobia et al. 2016). Konu’s and Hascher’s models
of school wellbeing respond to this call. However, considering a single perspective, par-
ticularly for children with difficulties, has been criticized for several reasons. First, chil-
dren may struggle to describe their difficulties via a self-report measure (Varni et al. 2007).
Consequently, they may tend to choose extreme options and base their responses on a sin-
gle experience, while adults may judge their experiences holistically. Such differences are
related to children’s stages of cognitive development (Rotsika et al. 2011; Theunissen et al.
1998). Finally, struggling children may underestimate their problems to protect themselves
from the pain of facing their difficulties (Rotsika et al. 2011). Accordingly, some studies
investigating wellbeing and quality of life found partially inconsistent results after compar-
ing children’s and their parents’ points of view, especially when children with difficulties
were involved (Rotsika et al. 2011; Tobia et al. 2016). Nevertheless, there is evidence that
both self-report and proxy-report questionnaires have acceptable levels of validity (e.g.,
Theunissen et al. 1998). Importantly, even when children can provide accurate self-reports,
parental proxy-reports should be considered as an additional outcome measure, given par-
ents’ role in the school-family relationship and in-home support for children with school
difficulties. Similarly, teachers’ proxy-reports could provide information regarding chil-
dren’s behaviour and relationships at school.
Furthermore, previous studies have shown parental stress and traces of anxious or
depressive symptoms in parents of children with different forms of school difficulties (Al-
Yagon and Margalit 2012; Bonifacci et al. 2016) as well as an impact on the school-family
relationship (Wyrick and Rudasill 2009). Stressed, anxious parents are often less able to
support their children and show lower school involvement. Since parental school involve-
ment is a well-known protective factor for children’s school adjustment (Hill and Taylor
2004); this deficit can cause a vicious circle impacting on families’ wellbeing. Teachers’
wellbeing can also be affected by students’ school maladjustment (Chang 2009), and hav-
ing stressed teachers can in turn worsen students’ experience (Breeman et al. 2015). These
results suggest the importance of investigating not only parents’ and teachers’ observations
on children’s school wellbeing but also their personal experience in relation to children’s
school difficulties in order to get a complete picture of the child’s context and intervene to
prevent vicious circles.

1.2 The Questionnaire on School Wellbeing

The Questionnaire on School Wellbeing (QBS; Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a), which
was used in this study to assess children’s wellbeing at school, is an instrument that was
recently developed in the Italian context in order to respond to the critical issues described
above. In fact, it is based on a multi-dimensional concept of school wellbeing that includes
psychological, cognitive and social components. Then, using a three-perspective approach,
the QBS allows for the analysis of children’s subjective experience at school and the col-
lection of parents’ and teachers’ observations. Furthermore, the questionnaire investigates
parents’ and teachers’ experience in relation to children’s possible difficulties at school,

13
 V. Tobia et al.

thereby taking into account the effects of students’ school situation on the significant adults
who are directly or indirectly involved in school life. The variables included in the ques-
tionnaires are therefore those components of school life that have been identified as rel-
evant indicators of wellbeing at school in past studies:

• Relationships in the school context, especially the Relationship with classmates (Buhs
et  al. 2006; Danielsen et  al. 2010) and Relationship with teachers (Danielsen et  al.
2010; Roorda et al. 2011) subscales included in the child’s version of the QBS, as well
as the school-home relationship (Adams and Christenson 2000; Wyrick and Rudasill
2009) investigated with the subscale Relationship with teachers in the parent’s version
of the QBS and Relationship with parents in the teacher’s version.
• Children’s self-efficacy (Bassi et  al. 2007) assessed with the Self-efficacy subscale
included in the QBS-child’s version and self-awareness (Ingesson 2007) assessed with
the Child/Pupil’s awareness of his/her difficulties subscales in the parent’s and teacher’s
versions of the QBS.
• Children’s emotional functioning (Roeser et al. 1998) investigated either in the child’s
(Emotional attitude towards school), parent’s and teacher’s (Child/Pupil’s emotional
difficulties at school) versions of the QBS.
• Children’s learning processes (Holfve-Sabel 2014) reported by parents and teachers
through the Evaluation of learning processes subscale.
• Children’s satisfaction with school results (Gilman and Huebner 2006), measured
through the Gratification obtained by school results subscale of the QBS-child’s ver-
sion.

Furthermore, parents’ and teachers’ Personal experience in relation to the child/pupil’s

difficulties was investigated considering that children’s school difficulties pose multiple
parenting challenges (Al-Yagon and Margalit 2012; Bonifacci et  al. 2016) and have an
impact on teachers’ wellbeing (Chang 2009; Isenbarger and Zembylas 2006).

1.3 Wellbeing in Schools: Gender and Age Effects

Using a multi-dimensional approach to school wellbeing makes it possible to analyse how

two fundamental variables in childhood, gender and age, impact on different components
of it. This is relevant both for assessment and intervention: for example, knowing that peer
relationships within the school context are globally worse for older students, allows one to
plan a targeted intervention in middle or high school.
In a study in which Konu and Lintonen’s (2006) model was applied, it was found that
students in grades 4–6 experienced better school conditions, social relationships and means
of self-fulfilment compared to students in grades 7–12. Regarding gender differences, girls
rated their school wellbeing more positively; however, they showed more symptoms (i.e.,
physical symptoms such as neck and shoulder pain, stomach ache, tension or nervousness)
than boys at each school level. Additionally, some researchers who employed Hascher’s
questionnaire analysed gender differences finding relatively mixed results. For example,
Hascher and Hagenauer (2011) reported that female students had more positive attitudes
towards school and greater enjoyment but they also had more somatic complaints and wor-
ries about school than male students. Other studies showed that male students were more
distressed than female students but no significant gender effect was observed on depressive
symptoms (Correia and Dalbert 2007; Peter et al. 2013).

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

1.4 Concurrent Predictors of School Wellbeing

Another critical issue for assessment and intervention in schools is knowing children’s indi-
vidual characteristics that are related to self-reported school wellbeing. For example, learn-
ing skills are a fundamental component of school life. Coherently, Holfve-Sabel (2014)
found that sixth-grade students’ self-evaluated learning predicted their school wellbeing.
In contrast, Van Petegem et al. (2008), using language and mathematics tests to assess the
learning skills of ninth graders directly, found no significant predictive power of this vari-
able on school wellbeing. However, these students were older and were not attending com-
pulsory school. It is, therefore, possible that the non-significant role of learning skills in
Van Petegem et al.’s study depended on factors that were related to the students’ ages and
type of school. As a variable that is linked to but does not completely overlap with (Jussim
1991) learning skills, school grades have been found to play a role in influencing school
wellbeing. Specifically, children with higher grades have shown better emotional function-
ing in the school context, whereas those with lower grades have exhibited more depressive
symptoms related to school (Roeser et al. 1998; Undheim and Sund 2005). These variables
can be viewed as emotional components of school wellbeing. Another factor that has been
found to be associated with school wellbeing is children’s behavioural problems. That is,
children with conduct, attentional and/or emotional difficulties tend to have lower levels
of wellbeing (e.g., Gutman et  al. 2010; Roffey 2010). Finally, a variable that reportedly
influences not only school wellbeing but also its potential predictors is gender (Løhre et al.
2014). To date, these potential concurrent predictors of school wellbeing have been ana-
lysed separately. Combining them into one regression model allows for the examination
of the relationships among all the variables (i.e., learning skills, grades, behavioural prob-
lems, gender), rather than limiting the analysis to the consideration of one single independ-
ent variable at a time. This type of analysis to investigate concurrent predictors of school
wellbeing is still lacking in the literature.

1.5 Aim of the Study

The present study investigates children’s wellbeing in the school setting using a multi-
dimensional and multi-informant questionnaire that was recently validated in the Italian
context: the QBS (Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a).
The first aim of this study was to analyse differences based on gender and school level.
The subjective school experience of male and female students attending primary (3rd
to 5th grade) and middle (6th to 8th grade) school was investigated by examining their
QBS subscale scores, namely their Relationship with classmates and teachers, Gratifica-
tion obtained by school results, Self-efficacy, and Emotional attitude towards school. Fur-
thermore, their total wellbeing score, which was obtained by combining the QBS subscale
scores, was considered. Based on past findings (Hascher and Hagenauer 2011; Konu and
Lintonen 2006), we expected to find girls to have a greater emotional impact in terms of
negative emotions, of school-related experiences and higher scores on relationships with
classmates and teachers, personal satisfaction regarding school attainment, and school self-
efficacy than boys. Then, given Konu and Lintonen’s (2006) results, we expected that pri-
mary school students would generally have higher wellbeing compared to middle school
students. This hypothesis is also supported by past research on the transition from primary
to middle school, which has been identified as a critical change for early adolescents with

13
 V. Tobia et al.

negative consequences on their self-esteem, self-efficacy, motivation, and social relation-

ships (Symonds and Galton 2014; Zanobini and Usai 2002).
As a second objective, concurrent predictors of school wellbeing were analysed sepa-
rately for primary and middle school students to include gender, school grades, learning
skills, and behavioural problems. The question that we wanted to answer was: Which char-
acteristics concurrently predict students’ school wellbeing? Based on past studies (e.g.,
Holfve-Sabel 2014; Roffey 2010; Undheim and Sund 2005), we expected that all these fac-
tors (i.e., gender, school grades, learning skills, and behavioural problems) would indepen-
dently contribute to determining children’s wellbeing at school. In particular, we expected
to find a positive influence of learning skills and school grades and a negative influence of
behavioural problems. Furthermore, we expected that gender would influence school well-
being and/or its predictors (Løhre et al. 2014).
Finally, this study aimed to investigate the points of view and personal experience of
parents and teachers of children with low, medium and high levels of subjective school
wellbeing as measured by the QBS total score, with a special focus on children who
reported low levels of wellbeing. This is because these children should be the principal
recipients of interventions aimed at improving their experience, and including parents’ and
teachers’ points of view can help to develop these specific interventions. The questions that
guided this part of the study were: (1) What do parents and teachers observe in children
who subjectively experience a low level of school wellbeing? (2) What is their personal
experience in relation to the children’s difficulties? Previous studies have highlighted the
importance of considering both parents’ and teachers’ points of view (e.g., Rotsika et al.
2011) and personal experience (e.g., Chang 2009).
Answering all these questions would allow us to broaden our understanding of children
who experience discomfort at school with the ultimate aim of developing effective inter-
ventions to interrupt the vicious circle that could lead to school dropout (Rumberger and
Lim 2008).

2 Method

2.1 Participants

A community sample of 1038 third- to eighth-grade students at 12 schools was involved

in the study (Table 1). The schools were located in areas with varying socio-economic sta-
tuses situated in the northern part of Italy. Half of the participants were from small subur-
ban towns with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, whereas the remaining students were from
larger urban areas. In the Italian schooling system, primary school starts when children are

Table 1  Description of the sample: number of female and male students for each grade
Grade Total
3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

Female 85 78 77 75 95 97 507
Male 109 81 81 90 74 96 531
Total 194 159 158 165 169 193 1038
Mean age (SD) 8.59 (.34) 9.57 (.37) 10.51 (.39) 11.55 (.41) 12.65 (.45) 13.63 (.44)

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

6 years old and lasts for 5 years from 1st to 5th grade. Then, children attend a 3-year pro-
gramme called lower secondary school or middle school from 6th to 8th grade. Generally,
the educational curriculum in primary and middle school is the same for all students.
For profile analyses, three groups were selected based on their total T score on the QBS,
which represents a global index of subjective school wellbeing, using the cut-offs reported
in the test manual. The first group, characterized by a T score < 36, included 62 (mean
age = 11.11 ± 1.86  years, 46.8% female) children with a low level of school wellbeing.
For the second group, 107 students (mean age = 11.13 ± 1.81  years, 55.1% female) with
a high level of school wellbeing, specifically a T score > 60, were selected. Finally, from
the remaining students, 107 participants (mean age = 11.47 ± 1.82  years, 54.2% female)
were randomly selected who had a medium level of school wellbeing, specifically a T score
between 36 and 60. The three groups were balanced in terms of school level (χ2(2) = 1.032,
p = .597) and gender (χ2(2) = 1.222, p = .543). For each of these children, a parent and a
teacher filled in the parent’s and teacher’s versions of the QBS, respectively, for a total of
276 parents and 57 teachers involved.

2.2 Instruments

2.2.1 School Wellbeing

The Questionnaire on School Wellbeing (QBS; Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a) is a recently
validated instrument designed to measure variables that are related to wellbeing at school
in students from 3rd to 8th grade from three perspectives: the students themselves, their
parents, and their teachers. The student version of the QBS includes 27 items and investi-
gates students’ Gratification obtained by school results (α = .81; e.g., “I am satisfied with
the results I get at school”), Relationship with teachers (α = .77; e.g., “I trust my teachers”),
Relationship with classmates (α = .76; e.g., “I feel accepted in my class”), Emotional atti-
tude towards school (α = .54; e.g., “I’m ashamed to speak in front of the whole class”), and
Self-efficacy (α = .66; e.g., “I usually have good ideas”). The total QBS score (α = .82) was
calculated by adding the mean scores obtained on the five subscales.
The parent and teacher versions comprise 36 items and five subscales each: Personal
experience in relation to the child/pupil’s difficulties (α parent/teacher version = .80/.83;
e.g., “I feel alone facing my child/my pupil’s difficulties”), Evaluation of learning processes
(α parent/teacher version = .83/.92; e.g., “My child/pupil has difficulties in comprehending
what she/he reads”), Child’s/Pupil’s emotional difficulties at school (α parent/teacher ver-
sion = .72/.80; e.g., “My child/pupil shows anxiety before a school examination”), Child’s/
Pupil’s awareness of his/her difficulties (α parent/teacher version = .69/.74; e.g., “My child/
pupil talks about his/her school difficulties”), and Relationship with teachers/parents (α
parent/teacher version = .80/.88; e.g., “My child’s teachers work with our family to help
him/her”/“My pupil’s parents work with teachers to help him/her”). All the reported reli-
abilities were obtained on the normative sample (Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a), that corre-
sponds to the present study’s sample (N = 1038) for the children’s version of the QBS. The
number of the normative sample of parents is 942; 59 teachers filled in the QBS referring
to a total of 865 students.
Responses to all questionnaires were obtained on a three-point Likert scale ranging from
not true (0) to very true (2). The raw scores could be transformed into T scores (mean = 50,
SD = 10) based on the instrument’s norms (Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a).

13
 V. Tobia et al.

The instrument factorial structure, with items saturating the subscales and the subscales
saturating the QBS total score, has been analysed (Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a) lead-
ing to acceptable results for the children’s (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) = .052, 90% CI = .048-.056; Comparative Fit index (CFI) = .939; Tuker-Lewis
Index (TLI) = .932), parent’s (RMSEA = .063, 90% CI = .060-.065; CFI = .862; TLI = .852)
and teacher’s (RMSEA = .073, 90% CI = .071-.075; CFI = .918; TLI = .912) versions of the
QBS. Furthermore, concurrent validity analysis on the children’s version showed medium
to high correlations with previously validated measures of relationships with peers and
teachers (Test for interpersonal relationships; Bracken, 1996), of self-efficacy (test of scho-
lastic self-efficacy; Bandura, 2000), or with other analog instruments (Tobia and Marzocchi
2015a). For the parent’s and teacher’s versions of the QBS, adequate discriminant validity
with respect to children’s grade and gender was reported by the test’s manual (Tobia and
Marzocchi 2015a); furthermore, past studies showed that these questionnaires are able to
discriminate between parents and teachers of children with and without school difficulties
(e.g., Tobia and Marzocchi 2015b).

2.2.2 Learning Skills

Students’ reading comprehension and mathematical abilities were assessed via two Italian
standardized tests that were typically used to identify learning disabilities. Reading com-
prehension skills were evaluated with the MT Test (Cornoldi and Colpo 1998), which was
administered collectively. Children had to read a short story silently, and then answer 10
(primary school) or 15 (middle school) multiple-choice questions. The MT Test provides
one to three different passages for a grade, based on the time of year it is administered. For
the present study, the passage for the first part of the year (September–October) was cho-
sen. Test–retest reliability calculated on the normative sample is .90 (Cornoldi and Colpo
1998). The percentage of correct answers was calculated.
Performance in mathematics was measured using the written calculation task from the
AC-MT Test (Cornoldi et al. 2002). Eight written multi-digit calculations (two additions,
two subtractions, two multiplications, and two divisions) were presented to the children.
Students scored 0 for wrong answers and 1for right answers. The test–retest reliability
coefficient for the task is r = .49 for primary school and r = .59 for middle school (Cornoldi
et al. 2002). In this case, once again, the percentage of correct responses was calculated.

2.2.3 School Grades

Teachers completed a form indicating the students’ grades in the past year in the follow-
ing subjects: Italian (grammar and literature), mathematics, science, history, geography,
and English. In Italy, school grades are scaled from 1 (very poor) to 10 (excellent), with 6
representing sufficient performance. The mean school grade was calculated for each par-
ticipant and the consistency for the 6 subjects was high (Conbach’s α = .95).

2.2.4 Behavioural Attributes

The single-sided teachers’ version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ;
Goodman 1997), a 25-item screening instrument, was administered to investigate chil-
dren’s behavioural traits from the teachers’ point of view. The SDQ total difficul-
ties score (α = .88; Tobia et  al. 2013), an index including emotional symptoms, conduct

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

problems, hyperactivity-inattention, and peer relationship problems, was used for this
study. Responses were obtained on a 3-point Likert-type scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat
true, 2 = certainly true).

2.3 Procedures

Before the study began, parents were contacted through the school with a request for them
to provide written consent for their and their children’s participation. The students’ version
of the QBS and the learning tasks were administered collectively in class in a 1 h session.
The parents’ version of the QBS was delivered to parents through teachers and was then
returned in closed envelopes that the teachers collected and gave to the examiners. Finally,
teachers completed the teachers’ version of the QBS and the SDQ and provided informa-
tion about student grades. The questionnaires and tests were all administered and scored
by trained developmental psychology graduate students. The scoring procedure was super-
vised by a doctoral student who was also a clinical psychologist.

2.4 Data Analysis

To analyse differences based on gender and school level in the components of school well-
being, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with five dependent
variables, including the raw scores on the QBS subscales, and two between-subject factors,
gender (male, female) and school level (primary school, middle school). Then, differences
based on gender and school level on the QBS total raw score were analysed in a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA). For all the analyses of variance performed, eta-squared (ƞ2)
values were computed as measures of the effect size for each dependent variable. Cohen’s
(1988) guidelines for interpreting eta-squared values are as follows: .01 indicates a small
effect, .06 indicates a moderate effect, and .14 indicates a large effect.
To investigate the effect of grades, learning skills, and behavioural problems on
school wellbeing in primary and middle school students, a multi-group path analysis was
employed.
Preliminary ANOVAs were run in order to analyse differences on the predictor and cri-
terion measures based on the schools. Then, school wellbeing, school grades, and behav-
ioural problems were used in the model as total scores, while the learning skills variable
was operationalized as students’ reading comprehension and mathematical abilities. To
account for a possible gender effect, this variable was included in the model. Cases with
more than 10% of missing values were excluded from this analysis. The variables were
preliminarily submitted to analyses, using IBM SPSS Statistics to check the normal dis-
tribution by calculating indices of skewness and kurtosis; West et al. (1995) recommend
concern if skewness > 2 and kurtosis > 7. Following the recommendations of Hooper et al.
(2008), a variety of global fit indices were used to determine whether the expected model
was plausible, given the data. We used the traditional overall Chi square test of model
fit (which should not be statistically significant). Considering the sensitivity of the Chi
square statistic to the sample size, other goodness of fit indices were used based on Hu and
Bentler’s recommendations (1999), including the comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.95 indi-
cates a good fit), standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.05 indicates a good
fit), and root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08 indicates a good fit).
For the profile analysis, the QBS raw Total score was converted to a T score. Based on
the published norms (Tobia and Marzocchi 2015a), students were classified has having a

13
 V. Tobia et al.

low (T < 36), medium (36 ≤ T ≤ 60) or high (T > 60) level of subjective school wellbeing.
Then, in two MANOVAs, we investigated differences on the five subscales of the QBS
scores of parents and teachers (dependent variables: Personal experience in relation to the
child/pupil’s difficulties, Evaluation of learning processes, Child/pupil’s emotional difficul-
ties at school, Child/pupil’s awareness of his/her difficulties, and Relationship with teach-
ers/parents) to determine if differences existed for children with low, medium, and high
school wellbeing (independent variable: Group). Tukey post hoc tests were performed.
Data analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS
Statistics 23) and Mplus 7 (Muthén and Muthén 2011).

3 Results

3.1 Gender and School Level Differences in School Wellbeing

The results of the 5 (QBS subscale scores) × 2 (gender: male, female) × 2 (school level: pri-
mary, middle) MANOVA showed a significant main effect of gender (Pillai’s Trace = .061,
F(5, 1029) = 13.311, p < .001, ƞ2 = .061) and school level (Pillai’s Trace = .119, F(5,
1029) = 27.791, p < .001, ƞ2 = .119) as well as a significant interaction of gender x school
level (Pillai’s Trace = .015, F(5, 1029) = 3.050, p = .01, ƞ2 = .015). The results of the uni-
variate analyses and the results of the ANOVA performed with the QBS Total score are
presented in Table  2. Gender differences were found for all the QBS subscales, except
for Self-efficacy. Girls showed higher Gratification obtained by school results and a bet-
ter Relationship with teachers compared to boys; on the other hand, boys showed a better
Relationship with classmates and obtained a higher score in the Emotional attitude towards
school subscale, revealing more positive emotions in the school context. Considering dif-
ferences by school level, higher scores were found for primary school children in all the
subscales and for the QBS Total score, showing a higher level of school wellbeing for the
youngest children. Finally, only one interaction proved significant: girls showed a stronger
decrement than boys for the Emotional attitude towards school score from primary school
to middle school.

3.2 Path Analysis on the Relations Between School Wellbeing and Concurrent

Predictors

Results of the preliminary analysis showed a significant main effect of School for all the
variables considered (the QBS total score, school grades, behavioural problems, read-
ing comprehension, written calculations; F(7, 340) = 3.688–5.467, p ≤ .001, for primary
schools; F(3, 438) = 3.844–10.048, p = .001–010 for middle schools) with the exception
of reading comprehension for primary school, behavioural problems and written calcula-
tion for middle school. Bonferroni post hoc analysis showed a few significant differences
among schools reported in Table 3.
The exploratory model of school wellbeing with grades, learning skills, and behav-
ioural problems as concurrent predictors was tested for both groups of students (primary
vs. middle school). To account for a possible gender effect, this variable was included in
the model. In line with recommendations by West et al. (1995), all the variables showed
an acceptable distribution; skewness and kurtosis showed normally distributed variables
­(SkewnessMIN = − 0.57 − SkewnessMAX = 1.08; ­KurtosisMIN = − 0.62 − KurtosisMAX = 0.68).

13
 Table 2  Mean (SD) scores obtained by male and female students in primary and middle school for the QBS subscales and total score, and results of the analysis of variance
QBS subscales (score’s range) Primary school Middle school F (1,1033), (ƞ2)
Males Females Males Females Gender School level Gender × school level

Gratification obtained by school results (0–2) 1.44 (.49) 1.52 (.42) 1.13 (.53) 1.29 (.50) 15.737** (.015) 81.852** (.073) 1.766 NS (.002)
Relationship with teachers (0–2) 1.55 (.42) 1.65 (.34) 1.29 (.48) 1.36 (.48) 8.308** (.008) 100.158** (.088) .240 NS (.000)
Relationship with classmates (0–2) 1.58 (.38) 1.57 (.37) 1.56 (.43) 1.46 (.44) 5.158* (.005) 5.677* (.005) 3.076 NS (.003)
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

Emotional attitude towards school (0–2) 1.15 (.50) 1.09 (.50) 1.11 (.48) .89 (.47) 21.313** (.020) 14.525** (.014) 6.455* (.006)
Self-efficacy (0–2) 1.36 (.36) 1.32 (.40) 1.26 (.41) 1.23 (.39) 1.958 NS (.002) 16.385** (.016) .007 NS (.000)
QBS total score (0–10) 7.09 (1.47) 7.15 (1.29) 6.36 (1.43) 6.23 (1.41) .153 NS (.000) 88.557** (.079) 1.164 NS (.001)

NS non-significant
**p < .01, *p < .05

13
 V. Tobia et al.

Table 3  Bonferroni post hoc of Variables Primary ­schoolsa Middle ­schoolsb

the differences among schools
observed for the variables
QBS total score 7 < 1, 6 12 < 9, 10
considered in the path model
School grades 3–8 < 1; 5 < 6 12 < 9–11
Behavioural problems 2, 3, 5 < 4; 2 < 5, 7 –
Reading comprehension – 9 < 11
Written calculations 7 < 5, 6, 8; 4 < 6 –
a
 Primary schools are numbered from 1 to 8
b
 Middle schools are numbered from 9 to 12

(a)
.02 n.s. Gender
-.01 n.s. .04 n.s.
Reading .57*** -.02 n.s.
comprehension Learning -.23***
skills

.56*** .30+
.74***
Mathematical
abilities
.12 n.s.
-.47*** Grades School wellbeing

-.42*** R2 = .16
.00 n.s.
Behavioural
problems

(b)
.13** Gender
.21*** -.12*
Reading .67*** .19***
comprehension Learning -.20***
skills

.57*** .13 n.s.

.65***
Mathematical
abilities
.19*
-.55*** Grades School wellbeing

-.57*** R2 = .20
-.20**
Behavioural
problems

Fig. 1  Path model for school wellbeing with standardized coefficients for primary school students (a) and
middle school students (b). Note: dashed lines indicate non-significant paths; +p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01;
***p < .001; n.s. = non-significant

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

The two-level paths with beta coefficients are shown in Fig.  1a and b. The model
fit to the data was acceptable both for the entire sample (n  = 780; χ2(2) = 8.167,
p = .017; CFI = .993; SRMR = 0.013; RMSEA = 0.063 [0.023–0.110]) and for the two
groups (n = 341; χ2(2) = 5.326, p = .070; CFI = .987; SRMR = 0.016; RMSEA = 0.070
[0.000–0.145] for primary school; n  = 439; χ2(2) = 0.165, p = .921; CFI = 1.000;
SRMR = 0.002; RMSEA = 0.000 [0.000–0.033] for middle school).
The results of the exploratory model for the primary school group indicated that school
wellbeing tended to be positively influenced by learning skills (β = .30, p = .059). Read-
ing comprehension and mathematical abilities had statistically significant high loadings on
learning skills. Moreover, grades, learning skills, and behavioural problems were signifi-
cantly correlated. Finally, male gender was significantly associated with a greater number
of behavioural problems.
The results of the exploratory model for the middle school group indicated that school
wellbeing was significantly and positively influenced by grades and significantly and nega-
tively influenced by behavioural problems. Reading comprehension and mathematical abil-
ities had high and significant loadings on learning skills. Moreover, grades, learning skills,
and behavioural problems were significantly correlated. Finally, female gender was signifi-
cantly associated with higher reading comprehension, mathematical abilities and grades,
and lower behavioural problems and school wellbeing. The model accounted for 15.6% of
the variance in school wellbeing for primary school students (Fig. 1a) and 19.8% for mid-
dle school students (Fig. 1b).

3.3 Parents’ and Teachers’ Perspectives of Children with Low, Medium

and High Subjective School Wellbeing

The MANOVAs revealed significant multivariate effects of group on both parents’ (Pil-
lai’s Trace = .253, F(10, 540) = 7.832, p < .001) and teachers’ (Pillai’s Trace = .231, F(10,
540) = 7.065, p < .001) QBS subscale scores. Significant univariate effects for all the
dependent variables were also found (Table 4). Tukey post hoc results, which are reported
in Table  4, revealed that parents of children who reported a low level of school wellbe-
ing described a significantly lower quality of Personal experience in relation to the child’s
difficulties and observed more learning and emotional difficulties in their offspring com-
pared to parents of children with a medium or high level of school wellbeing. However,
they rated the Child’s awareness of his/her difficulties and their Relationship with teachers
similarly to parents of children with an average level of school wellbeing. The parents of
children with a high level of school wellbeing scored highest on all the subscales except
for Child’s emotional difficulties at school. The analysis of the teacher questionnaire data
showed significantly lower scores for the Evaluation of learning processes, Pupil’s aware-
ness of his/her difficulties, and Relationship with parents subscales for teachers of children
with low wellbeing. Children with a high level of subjective school wellbeing were rated
with significantly higher scores than the average group for Evaluation of learning processes
and Pupil’s emotional difficulties at school (fewer difficulties).

4 Discussion

The present study investigated the construct of school wellbeing using a multi-dimensional
and multi-informant approach involving children attending primary school (3rd to 5th

13


13
Table 4  Mean (SD) scores for the QBS parents’ and teachers’ versions subscales and total scores, and results of the analysis of variance
Subscale Children’s school wellbeing MANOVA’s results Tukey post hoc
Low Medium High F(2, 275) (ƞ2)

QBS-parents
 Personal experience in relation to the child’s difficulties 44.45 (10.36) 49.92 (10.17) 54.47 (8.75) 21.238** (.135) Low < medium < high
 Evaluation of learning processes 43.47 (11.18) 49.33 (9.50) 55.07 (7.58) 32.344** (.192) Low < medium < high
 Child’s emotional difficulties at school 44.97 (11.52) 50.17 (10.11) 53.00 (9.23) 12.344** (.083) Low < medium, high
 Child’s awareness of his/her difficulties 49.17 (11.22) 49.61 (9.63) 53.18 (9.12) 4.768** (.034) Low, medium < high
 Relationship with teachers 47.23 (9.74) 49.58 (9.26) 53.21 (9.05) 8.920** (.061) Low, medium < high
QBS-teachers
 Personal experience in relation to the pupil’s difficulties 48.08 (9.30) 50.90 (8.35) 53.21 (7.11) 7.898** (.055) Low < high; medium = low, high
 Evaluation of learning processes 43.38 (9.50) 50.52 (9.56) 54.74 (8.09) 31.297** (.187) Low < medium < high
 Pupil’s emotional difficulties at school 48.32 (10.13) 47.94 (11.13) 52.36 (9.15) 5.828** (.041) Low, medium < high
 Pupil’s awareness of his/her difficulties 46.54 (9.70) 51.44 (10.03) 53.30 (8.67) 10.197** (.070) Low < medium, high
 Relationship with parents 45.94 (9.74) 50.81 (9.71) 53.40 (8.58) 12.643** (.085) Low < medium, high

**p < .01
V. Tobia et al.
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

grade) and middle school (6th to 8th grade) as well as their parents and their teachers. The
conceptualization of school wellbeing in this study represented an attempt to respond to the
needs highlighted in past reviews of the literature on this topic (Amerijckx and Humblet
2014; Pollard and Lee 2003). For example, it is a response to the need to consider the psy-
chological, social, and cognitive domains of wellbeing simultaneously, be context-specific
and consider both subjective and proxy indicators. In the past, many studies—reviewed
in the Introduction—have separately analysed the different components investigated here
such as the relationship with teachers or self-efficacy. To our knowledge, no study has con-
sidered all these variables together, building a multi-dimensional model and investigating
the effects of gender and school level. Furthermore, no previous study has analysed school
wellbeing using a multi-informant approach to include children’s, parents’ and teachers’
points of view.

4.1 Gender and School Level Differences

The first aim of this study was to investigate differences based on gender and school level
(primary vs. middle school) on various components of children’s subjective school wellbe-
ing. The results observed were partially in line with our hypothesis. First, the gender com-
parisons showed that girls experienced greater Gratification obtained by school results and
had a better Relationship with teachers. This is consistent with Konu and Lintonen’s (2006)
finding of higher scores for females on scales evaluating means of self-fulfilment and social
relationships. However, in Konu and Lintonen’s (2006) work, the “social relationships”
scale included items relating to relationships with peers and teachers as well as between
home and school. Consequently, it was difficult to determine which of these elements influ-
enced the better results obtained by girls. In the present study, it was found that female
students had a better Relationship with teachers than male students did, both in primary
and middle school. However, the situation was different when analysing the Relationship
with classmates. In that case, boys had better Relationship with classmates, particularly
in middle school. These results align with the research findings analysing the perceptions
that children have of teachers’ support (Hughes et al. 2001) and with studies showing that
girls were more cooperative and responsible than boys, at least in primary school, which
are characteristics that teachers prefer (Sadker et al. 1991). Additionally, as hypothesized,
girls scored lower on the Emotional attitude towards school subscale, exhibiting more sen-
timents of shame, guilt and tension. Furthermore, as revealed by the significant interac-
tion of gender and school level, this difference between males and females was stronger
in middle school students, suggesting a worsening in Emotional attitude towards school
in early adolescent girls. This finding is in line with previous results that analysed gender
differences in emotional aspects during adolescence in general and showed, for example,
a lower degree of emotional self-efficacy in adolescent girls than in boys (Bacchini and
Magliulo 2003) and stress-related maladjustment during early adolescence among girls
(Seiffge-Krenke 2000). Importantly, our results showed that this vulnerability also affects
school-related emotions.
We then predicted that middle school students would have lower school wellbeing com-
pared to primary school students. This hypothesis was largely confirmed, given the higher
scores obtained by children in primary school on all the indicators of school wellbeing
examined. Considering the effects sizes, the strongest declines were observed in the Gratifi-
cation obtained by school results and Relationship with teachers. Students in middle school
are entering puberty during which they construct their identity and self-image. During
this period, school motivation may diminish, and concentration difficulties may emerge.

13
 V. Tobia et al.

Adolescents often need continuous feedback about themselves. From a relational perspec-
tive, the need for acceptance and approval from peers and the need for autonomy from
adults become stronger (McLaughlin and Clarke 2010). These critical changes may affect
the way that they assess themselves and their relationships with significant others, includ-
ing both adults and peers. The transition from primary (1st to 5th grade) to middle (6th to
8th grade) school is a relatively major change for students in Italy. For example, they go
from having one main teacher per class to having a different teacher for every school sub-
ject. Additionally, the relationships with teachers usually become less close. Furthermore,
primary school teachers are more likely to offer individualized feedback to children, tak-
ing into account their learning style, temperament and difficulties, whereas middle school
teaching strategies are less personalized, and greater emphasis is placed on academic
results. As shown in previous studies (e.g., Symonds and Galton 2014), the transition from
primary school to middle school is associated with a decline in academic self-concept and
intrinsic motivation. The present study suggests that the school wellbeing of early adoles-
cents, which includes psychological, cognitive and social components, is affected by the
transition from primary school to middle school. It indicates that this period is critical for
developing targeted interventions relating not only to motivation or academic performance
but also to relationships within the school context and emotions towards school.

4.2 Concurrent Predictors of School Wellbeing

Beyond gender, the predictors of school wellbeing that we proposed, namely learning
skills, school grades and behavioural problems, had a weak relationship with subjective
school wellbeing in primary school children. Only the learning skills variable, which was
measured by children’s performance in reading comprehension and written calculations,
showed a tendency towards significance. This result is particularly interesting when it is
compared with the results of the middle school model, which showed that school grades,
behavioural problems and gender predicted subjective school wellbeing. The relatively
different pattern of concurrent predictors reflects the differences found in school wellbe-
ing in primary school and middle school. Presumably, the observed decline derives from
the major changes that children go through when moving from primary school to middle
school that also influence the pattern of predictors of students’ school wellbeing.
It has been shown in the literature that school grades are correlated with overall satisfac-
tion with school life and also predict school wellbeing, at least in 6th grade (Gilman and
Huebner 2006; Roeser et al. 1998). Our results add information to this literature, as we also
examined primary school children and found that school grades are significant predictors
of school wellbeing only in middle school. The significant role of conduct, attentional, and/
or emotional difficulties as predictors of lower levels of wellbeing can be explained, given
the effects that these problems have on the components of school wellbeing. Specifically,
they lead to poorer relationships with peers (Newcomb et al. 1993) and teachers (Henrics-
son and Rydell 2004) and affect school attainment (Hinshaw 1992), probably causing lower
satisfaction with school results and self-efficacy. We showed that this especially affects
individuals in early adolescence. Finally, gender differences were more marked in middle
school. Being female positively influenced learning skills, grades and school wellbeing,
whereas being male led to a greater number of behavioural problems. In primary school,
only this last relationship was significant. These results are in line with the literature show-
ing the greater impact of gender on adolescents compared to children on a wide range of
emotional and cognitive variables (Pomerantz et al. 2002; Rose and Rudolph 2006).

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

4.3 Parents’ and Teachers’ Points of View on Children with Low, Medium

and High Subjective School Wellbeing

The last objective of this study was to explore parents’ and teachers’ observations of chil-
dren with a low, medium or high level of school wellbeing, with a special interest in outlin-
ing the profile of children with low wellbeing at school. Having a description of children
with low school wellbeing and knowing what significant adults think and feel in relation to
their difficulties is an important issue when informing early identification and intervention
strategies for children at risk of developing school maladjustment.
Children with a low level of school wellbeing, namely those with a QBS total score of
approximately 1.5 standard deviations below average, were described by their parents as
exhibiting more learning and emotional difficulties. The fact that the parents recognized
these difficulties suggests that they were aware of the children’s need for specific support
(e.g., a tutor for homework, psychological support for emotional difficulties). This aware-
ness is the first step in an effective search for help, considering the importance of parents’
initiatives to seek home treatment or clinical support for their children (Varni et al. 2005).
Learning difficulties among these children were also identified by their teachers. In con-
trast, the emotional difficulties of children with a low level of school wellbeing, as observed
by their teachers in class, were similar to those of children with average school wellbe-
ing. This could indicate that teachers are less able to identify emotional struggles in these
children compared to parents or, alternatively, that children exhibit different behaviour in
school and at home. Moreover, parents and teachers of children with a low level of school
wellbeing had the worst ratings of their Personal experience in relation to the child/pupil’s
difficulties, describing feelings of worry, guilt, sadness and tension in relation to their
school life. It has been shown by previous researchers that perceived experiences of failure
at school increase the likelihood of aversive parent–child interactions after school (Repetti
1996). This is one possible way through which negative experiences at school can influ-
ence parents’ experience. Additionally, teachers’ wellbeing has been found to be related to
their emotional involvement with students as well as with the parent-teacher relationship
(Spilt et al. 2011). Therefore, it is plausible that children with a low level of school wellbe-
ing who eventually experience associated learning difficulties and behavioural problems
elicit feelings of despair and discomfort in their teachers.
Results relating to the parent-teacher relationship showed a difference in trust when
considering parents’ and teachers’ points of view, which is consistent with what Adams
and Christenson (2000) observed. Both in primary school and in secondary school, there
was a significantly higher level of parents’ trust towards teachers than vice versa. Our study
showed that this is particularly true for children who are experiencing difficulties. In fact,
teachers of children with low school wellbeing described their relationship with the stu-
dents’ parents as being more difficult, reporting poorer home-school collaboration and
less awareness among parents of their children’s weaknesses and strengths. In contrast, the
reports of parents regarding their relationship with and trust towards teachers were similar
for children with low and average school wellbeing.

4.4 Limitations of the Study

The main limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature. Adopting a longitudinal
approach would allow us to identify causes and effects in the relationship between school

13
 V. Tobia et al.

wellbeing and the variables that we considered as potential predictors. It would also enable
us to investigate the stability of school wellbeing over time and across contexts (e.g., transi-
tion from primary school to middle school). Another limitation is the lack of information
regarding children’s socio-economic status. It would be interesting to explore the role of
this variable when considering children with different levels of school wellbeing. How-
ever, previous studies that have analysed the effect of socio-economic status on children’s
wellbeing found a weak link (Konu et  al. 2002). Then, some differences among schools
were found for the variables included in the path analysis: the consideration of contex-
tual factors, such as school-level effects, would probably add important information to the
investigation of school wellbeing. Finally, a limitation about the main instrument used in
the present study, namely the QBS, should be mentioned: the Emotional attitudes toward
school subscale (child’s version of the QBS) showed a low Cronbach’s alpha, revealing an
issue with the scale’s reliability.

4.5 Implications for Intervention

Schools should evaluate students’ wellbeing, for example, to make positive changes or
introduce new policies and perform the evaluation again to see if progress has been made
(Cohen 2006; World Health Organization 2003). From the literature, we know that early
prevention programmes for primary school children as well as programmes that develop
protective factors in older children are more effective than interventions aimed at reduc-
ing existing negative behaviours (Browne et al. 2004). Schools can go beyond the focus on
“learning” and include among their objectives the promotion of children’s wellbeing, for
example, by positioning the classroom teacher as an effective and caring educator in both
academic and socio-emotional learning. The objectives of education should be both cog-
nitive and socio-emotional. Separating these two goals can lead to the short-changing of
students and ineffective practices in academic learning, social and emotional learning, and
mental health promotion (e.g., Greenberg et al. 2003).
The present study can inform suggestions for interventions. First, it showed which fac-
tors should be the objects of increased attention to promote school wellbeing in males and
females. For example, ameliorating relationships with classmates can be the focus of an
intervention involving groups of girls. Furthermore, the results highlighted the importance
of paying attention to the transition from primary school to middle school. Projects aimed
at preparing 5th grade children for the changes that they will go through the next year or
training for teachers aimed at responding to this critical transition are examples of poten-
tially useful interventions. Finally, this study highlights the importance of involving signifi-
cant adults who impact children’s school life, namely parents and teachers, when consider-
ing their wellbeing and relationships with each other. A complex intervention targeting the
network of people around the student, beyond the student himself/herself, could produce
stronger and more enduring changes.

Compliance with Ethical Standards 

Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval  This study was conducted in a manner consistent with the American Psychological
Association’s Ethical Principles (1982) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent  Informed consent was obtained from participants.

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

References
Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family–school relationship examination of par-
ent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5),
477–497.
Al-Yagon, M., & Margalit, M. (2012). Parental coping, emotional resources, and children’s adjustment: The-
ory, empirical evidence, and interventional implications. In B. Molinelli & V. Grimaldo (Eds.), Hand-
book of the psychology of coping: New research (pp. 59–84). New York, NY: Nova.
Amerijckx, G., & Humblet, P. C. (2014). Child well-being: What does it mean? Children and Society, 28(5),
404–415.
Bacchini, D., & Magliulo, F. (2003). Self-image and perceived self-efficacy during adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 32(5), 337–349.
Bandura, A. (2000). Autoefficacia, Teoria e Applicazioni [Self-efficacy, Theories and applications]. Trento:
Erickson.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Delle Fave, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Academic self-efficacy beliefs and quality of
experience in learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 301–312.
Ben-Arieh, A., McDonell, J., & Attar-Schwartz, S. (2009). Safety and home-school relations as indicators of
children well being: Whose perspective counts? Social Indicators Research, 90, 339–349.
Bonifacci, P., Storti, M., Tobia, V., & Suardi, A. (2016). Specific learning disorders a look inside children’s
and parents’ psychological well-being and relationships. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5),
532–545.
Bracken, B. A. (1996). TRI. Test delle Relazioni Interpersonali [TRI. Test of Interpersonal Relationships].
Trento: Erickson.
Breeman, L. D., Wubbels, T., Van Lier, P. A. C., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., Maras, A., et al. (2015).
Teacher characteristics, social classroom relationships, and children’s social, emotional, and behavioral
classroom adjustment in special education. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 87–103.
Browne, G., Gafni, A., Roberts, J., Byrne, C., & Majumdar, B. (2004). Effective/efficient mental health
programs for school-age children: A synthesis of reviews. Social Science and Medicine, 58(7),
1367–1384.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that medi-
ate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1–13.
Camfield, L., Streuli, N., & Woodhead, M. (2010). Children’s wellbeing in developing countries: A concep-
tual and methodological review. European Journal of Development Research, 22, 398–416.
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teach-
ers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, par-
ticipation in democracy, and wellbeing. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201–237.
Cornoldi, C., & Colpo, G. (1998). Prove di Lettura MT per la Scuola Elementare [Tests of reading MT for
primary school]. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Cornoldi, C., Lucangeli, D., & Bellina, M. (2002). AC-MT. Test di Valutazione delle Abilità di Calcolo [AC-
MT. Test for the assessment of calculation skills]. Trento: Erickson.
Correia, I., & Dalbert, C. (2007). Belief in a just world, justice concerns, and wellbeing at Portuguese
schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 421–437.
Danielsen, A. G., Wiium, N., Wilhelmsen, B. U., & Wold, B. (2010). Perceived support provided by teach-
ers and classmates and students’ self-reported academic initiative. Journal of School Psychology,
48(3), 247–267.
Duncan, G. J., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2001). Welfare reform and children’s wellbeing. In R. M. Blank &
R. Haskins (Eds.), The New world of welfare (pp. 391–420). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Fox, A., Duerr Berrick, J., & Frash, K. (2008). Safety, family, permanency, and child wellbeing: What we
can learn from children. Child Welfare, 87, 63–90.
Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 293–301.
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003).
Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social and emotional
learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.

13
 V. Tobia et al.

Gutman, L., Brown, J., Akerman, R., & Obolenskaya, P. (2010). Change in wellbeing from childhood to adoles-
cence: Risk and resilience [Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report No. 34].
Hascher, T. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student wellbeing. International
Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 84–96.
Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2011). Schulisches Wohlbefinden im Jugendalter—Verläufe und Einflussfak-
toren [Scholastic wellbeing in adolescence-Courses and influencing factors]. In A. Ittel, H. Merkens, & L.
Stecher (Eds.), Jahrbuch Jugendforschung (pp. 15–45). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Henricsson, L., & Rydell, A. M. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems: Teacher-child
relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(2), 111–138.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmat-
ics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161–164.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and ado-
lescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 127–155.
Holfve-Sabel, M. A. (2014). Learning, interaction and relationships as components of student wellbeing: Dif-
ferences between classes from student and teacher perspective. Social Indicators Research, 119(3),
1535–1555.
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. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the
quality of the teacher–student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 289–301.
Ingesson, S. G. (2007). Growing up with dyslexia: Interviews with teenagers and young adults. School Psychol-
ogy International, 28(5), 574–591.
Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 22(1), 120–134.
Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychological Review,
98, 54–73.
Konu, A., Alanen, E., Lintonen, T., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Factor structure of the school wellbeing model.
Health Education Research, 17(6), 732–742.
Konu, A. I., & Lintonen, T. P. (2006). School wellbeing in grades 4–12. Health Education Research, 21(5),
633–642.
Konu, A., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Wellbeing in schools: A conceptual model. Health Promotion International,
17(1), 79–87.
Løhre, A., Moksnes, U. K., & Lillefjell, M. (2014). Gender differences in predictors of school wellbeing?
Health Education Journal, 73(1), 90–100.
McLaughlin, C., & Clarke, B. (2010). Relational matters: A review of the impact of school experience on men-
tal health in early adolescence. Educational and Child Psychology, 27(1), 91–103.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus User’s Guide 2010. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of
popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1),
99–128.
Peter, F., Dalbert, C., Kloeckner, N., & Radant, M. (2013). Personal belief in a just world, experience of teacher
justice, and school distress in different class contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28,
1221–1235.
Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators
Research, 61(1), 59–78.
Pomerantz, E. M., Altermatt, E. R., & Saxon, J. L. (2002). Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender
differences in academic performance and internal distress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),
396–404.
Pople, L., & Mainstone-Cotton, S. (2014). Children’s wellbeing. In S. Hay (Ed.), Early years education and
care: New issues for practice from research (pp. 59–76). London: Routledge.
Repetti, R. L. (1996). The effects of perceived daily social and academic failure experiences on school-age chil-
dren’s subsequent interactions with parents. Child Development, 67(4), 1467–1482.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (1998). Academic and emotional functioning in early adoles-
cence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school. Development and
Psychopathology, 10(02), 321–352.
Roffey, S. (2010). Classroom support for including students with challenging behavior. In R. Rose (Ed.), Con-
fronting obstacles to inclusion: International responses to developing inclusive education (pp. 279–292).
London: Routledge.

13
Children’s Wellbeing at School: A Multi‑dimensional and…

Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student
relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement a meta-analytic approach. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 81(4), 493–529.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential
trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1),
98–131.
Rotsika, V., Coccossis, M., Vlassopoulos, M., Papaeleftheriou, E., Sakellariou, K., Anagnostopoulos, D. C.,
et al. (2011). Does the subjective quality of life of children with specific learning disabilities (SpLD) agree
with their parents’ proxy reports? Quality of Life Research, 20(8), 1271–1278.
Rumberger, R. & Lim, S.-A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research. Califor-
nia Dropout Research Project, Policy Brief 15. Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, Santa Barbara, CA.
Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Klein, S. (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. In G.
Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 17, pp. 269–334). Washington, DC: American Educa-
tional Research Association.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2000). Causal links between stressful events, coping style, and adolescent symptomatology.
Journal of Adolescence, 23, 675–691.
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student rela-
tionships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457–477.
Symonds, J. E., & Galton, M. (2014). Moving to the next school at age 10–14 years: An international review of
psychological development at school transition. Review of Education, 2(1), 1–27.
Theunissen, N. M., Vogels, T., Koopman, H. M., Verrips, G. H., Zwinderman, K. A. H., Verloove-Vanhorick,
S. P., et al. (1998). The proxy problem: Child report versus parent report in health-related quality of life
research. Quality of Life Research, 7, 387–397.
Tobia, V., Bonifacci, P., Ottaviani, C., Borsato, T., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2016). Reading under the skin: Physi-
ological activation during reading in children with dyslexia and typical readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(2),
171–186.
Tobia, V., Gabriele, M. A., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2013). The Italian version of the Strengths and difficulties
questionnaire (SDQ)—Teacher: Psychometric properties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
31(5), 493–505.
Tobia, V., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2015a). QBS 8-13. Questionari per la valutazione del benessere scolastico e
identificazione dei fattori di rischio [QBS 8-13. Questionnaires for the evaluation of school wellbeing and
the identification of risk factors]. Trento: Erickson.
Tobia, V., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2015b). Il benessere scolastico nella scuola primaria e secondaria di I grado:
Una ricerca su bambini con sviluppo tipico e con Bisogni Educativi Speciali [School wellness in primary
and middle school: A study of children with typical development and with special needs]. Difficoltà di
Apprendimento e Didattica Inclusiva, 3(2), 221–232.
Undheim, A. M., & Sund, A. M. (2005). School factors and the emergence of depressive symptoms among
young Norwegian adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 14(8), 446–453.
Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2008). The influence of student characteristics
and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on student’s wellbeing. Social Indicators Research,
85(2), 279–291.
Varni, J. W., Burwinkle, T. M., & Lane, M. M. (2005). Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric
clinical practice: An appraisal and precept for future research and application. Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 3(34), 1–9.
Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., & Burwinkle, T. M. (2007). Parent proxy-report of their children’s health-related
quality of life: an analysis of 13,878 parents’ reliability and validity across age subgroups using the Ped-
sQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(2), 2.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems
and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues, concepts, and applications (pp.
56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
World Health Organization (2003). Creating an environment for emotional and social wellbeing: An important
responsibility of a health promoting and child-friendly school. WHO/SCHOOL/03.10. Information series
on school health. Geneva: WHO.
Wyrick, A. J., & Rudasill, K. M. (2009). Parent involvement as a predictor of teacher–child relationship quality
in third grade. Early Education & Development, 20, 845–864.
Zanobini, M., & Usai, M. C. (2002). Domain-specific self-concept and achievement motivation in the transi-
tion from primary to low middle school. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 203–217.

13
View publication stats