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

net/publication/340416676

A Meta-Analysis on Effects of Parenting Programs on Bullying Prevention

Article  in  Trauma Violence & Abuse · April 2020

DOI: 10.1177/1524838020915619

CITATIONS READS
24 886

3 authors, including:

Yuhong Zhu Wing Hong Chui

Renmin University of China The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
23 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS    204 PUBLICATIONS   2,472 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Views of the Hong Kong Criminal Justice System from the Offenders' and the Professional's Perspectives View project

Probation for Young Offenders in Hong Kong View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuhong Zhu on 26 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review Manuscript
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
1-12
A Meta-Analysis on Effects of Parenting ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Programs on Bullying Prevention DOI: 10.1177/1524838020915619
journals.sagepub.com/home/tva

Qiqi Chen1, Yuhong Zhu2 , and Wing Hong Chui3

Abstract
Bullying is a serious public health concern across the globe. While there are a number of bullying interventions with
parental components, limited efforts have been made to synthesize the impacts of parenting programs on bullying
prevention. This meta-analysis aimed to review and examine parenting programs on bullying reduction that involving both
school-based and home visiting anti-bullying programs. The overall effect size supported a significant outcome on bullying
reduction (d ¼ .640, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.239, 1.041]). Results of this meta-analysis reported that participants
in the parenting programs scored significantly lower on both bullying and victimization. Data from the randomized
controlled trials and the pre- and posttest design studies showed evidence of highly significant effects of parenting
interventions on bullying reduction. Child- and parent-related factors including parenting style, children’s empathy, and
parent–child interaction about bullying were found to be significantly related to the effectiveness of intervention pro-
grams. This study provides evidence to enhance policy and practice for effectively enabling parent involvement in bullying
behavior reduction and to increase parent–children communication about bullying as well as parenting skills. Future
researchers and practitioners may explore more about the impact of school–family partnerships and their reliance on
each other to help reduce bullying.

Keywords
meta-analysis, parenting program, bullying, cyberbullying, prevention

Bullying is a serious public health problem that affects both
the well-being and social development of children (Juvonen
et al., 2011; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Bullying is defined
as aggressive and repeated behaviors intended to cause harm
to the target on the basis of perceived power imbalance
(Hemphill et al., 2014; Olweus, 1978). Bullying victimiza-
tion has been linked to serious physical and psychological
outcomes such as injury and depression (Bilsky et al., 2013;
Reijntjes et al., 2010). Higher bullying victimization risks
have been found among boys as well as young children with
few friends, low self-esteem, or psychological problems
such as hopelessness and suicide ideation (Cheng et al.,
2010; Zhu & Chan, 2015). Meta-analysis studies have pro-
posed that family and parental training play a pivotal role in
bullying reduction and have suggested that future research
specify and differentiate types of parental intervention in
anti-bullying programs (Holt et al., 2009; Huang et al.,
2019; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Therefore, more informa-
tion is needed to explore the effects of certain parental
characteristics by employing different research designs and
parent-involving methods. This meta-analysis aims to
review school and home-based anti-bullying programs and
examine the effect sizes of parental involvement and
research characteristics of the programs.
The Role of Parents in Bullying Victimization
Parents are recognized as playing a key role in children’s socia-
lization and development of emotional regulation and social
skills (Cross & Barnes, 2014). According to a socio-
ecological framework, children who engage in bullying do so
under the influence of interactions among individuals, family
systems, and community culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1994;
Huang et al., 2019). For example, children involved in bullying
are more likely to have parents with authoritarian parenting
styles and unresponsive or ineffective disciplinary approaches
(Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2013) and are more likely to experi-
ence different forms of violence at home and in the community
1
Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-
versity, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
2
Department of Social Work and Social Policy, School of Sociology & Popu-
lation Studies, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
3
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, City University of Hong Kong,
Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Corresponding Author:
Yuhong Zhu, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, School of Sociology
& Population Studies, Renmin University of China, Room 602, West Chongde
Building, No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
Email: zhuyuhong@ruc.edu.cn
2 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
(Zhu et al., 2018). Longitudinal studies have documented that
victimization exposure might lead to long-term disruptions to
relationship stability, parent–child conflict, and detriment to
the well-being of family members (Woodin et al., 2013). Vic-
timization within the family environment may increase the risk
of children learning violent behaviors and internalizing their
weakness as a stable personal trait, which may then increase
future possibilities of being bullied outside the family (Bidarra
et al., 2016). Negative patterns of behavior and maladaptive
coping strategies learned and reinforced from family members
may then extend into peer relationships and increase the like-
lihood of bullying involvement (Cross & Barnes, 2014; Cross
et al., 2018).
Previous research has noted that supportive interpersonal
relationships, and supportive parenting in particular, can miti-
gate the development of cognitive diatheses for depression and
foster the development of self-perceived competence (Bilsky
et al., 2013; Bruce et al., 2006). Moreover, supportive parenting
could moderate or buffer the adverse effects of peer victimiza-
tion (Bilsky et al., 2013). Attachment patterns and behaviors
are molded through interactions and experiences with care-
givers; insecure strategies could have more serious negative
effects if carried forward into adulthood (Feeney & Fitzgerald,
2019). For example, children with secure attachment patterns
are more likely to display competent, socially skilled behavior
and may mitigate the adverse effects of peer victimization with
regard to depression (Bilsky et al., 2013; Feeney & Fitzgerald,
2019). Secure parent attachment was also found as a protective
factor against the negative effects of cyberbullying victimiza-
tion on adolescents’ health and mental health symptoms (Zhu
et al., 2019).
Parenting Programs on Bullying Prevention
Scholars have therefore proposed to include parents in school-
based bullying prevention efforts (Holt et al., 2009; Huang
et al., 2019). Three meta-analyses that synthesized school-
based bullying reduction programs were found. One of the
meta-analyses concluded that school-based intervention pro-
grams reduced peer victimization between 17% and 20% com-
pared to routine school services (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009).
Parenting programs have shown to have positive effects on
improving parenting behaviors, parent–child interactions,
effective parenting skills, and children’s problem-solving abil-
ities (Kaminski et al., 2008). Another meta-analytic finding
revealed that providing parents with information was corre-
lated with a more significant reduction in bullying perpetration
among children (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). The most recent
meta-analysis on school-based anti-bullying programs exam-
ined the impact of parental components on bullying perpetra-
tion and victimization (Huang et al., 2019). This study revealed
the significant impact of parental components on the reduction
of both bullying perpetration and victimization (Huang et al.,
2019). The study also found that the presence of parent and
whole-school anti-bullying policies in the programs were effec-
tive elements and could be applied to school programs in China
(Huang et al., 2019). However, it only included studies based
on school environments, omitting intervention studies con-
ducted in community and family environments.
Parent training has been found to be one of the components
contributing to reductions in bullying perpetration and victimi-
zation of children by facilitating school–parent interactions
(Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Furthermore, the development of
the internet has diversified access to cyberspace and increased
the risk of cyberbullying. A systematic review found that
around 25% of children and adolescents reported a history of
being cyberbullied and at least 16% reported cyberbullying
perpetration (Hutson, 2016). Compared to traditional bullying,
which mostly happens in a school environment, cyberbullying
can take place anytime and anywhere with internet connectiv-
ity, leaving victims with no escape from victimization (Patchin
& Hinduja, 2015). Integrated violence prevention based on a
family context is therefore highly recommended for schools
and other service centers to support families as a whole in
preventing bullying victimization (Chen et al., 2019). Thus, it
is critical that bullying prevention programs provide parents
with the knowledge and skills to provide support to and assist
their children in negotiating peer relations and in avoiding
bullying involvement.
Bullying is a systemic problem and that intervention must be
made at the school level rather than at the individual level.
Whole-school approach refers to the holistic and strategic
involvement of the whole-school community, including stu-
dents, teachers, and parents to improve student well-being
(Richard et al., 2012). Based on this assumption, a variety of
whole-school-based programs have been implemented globally
to raise awareness of bullying risks and reduce children’s expo-
sure to the associated negative experiences, with the I-SAFE
Internet Safety Curriculum in the United States (Harshman,
2014) and the Friendly Schools Friendly Families (FSFF; Cross
et al., 2011) intervention in Australia being notable examples.
For example, the I-SAFE company in the United States spon-
sors the curriculum, which combines a traditional curriculum
and a newly developed social media platform to educate and
empower students to use technology safely (Harshman, 2014).
Parenting programs, the two major forms of which are home
visiting and parent education, usually take the shape of indi-
vidual or group-based parenting support (Chen & Chan, 2016).
Home visiting programs include individual service at family
environment conducted for young children, while parent train-
ing programs implement parenting practices by increasing par-
ental knowledge and developing parenting skills (Chen &
Chan, 2016; Holzer et al., 2006). The recent Home Visiting
Evidence of Effectiveness review in the United States reviewed
primary service delivery strategies and home visits serving
families with young children, which aimed to help children
by helping their parents and delivering intervention services
to families in their own homes (Avellar et al., 2012). This
review identified inconsistent findings about the effectiveness
of home visiting across various outcome domains (Avellar
et al., 2012). Differences in the effects of home visiting might
be explained by differences in program design, variation in the
Chen et al.
ways programs are comprised and delivered or the quality of
program implementation (Filene et al., 2013). Therefore, par-
ental components should be regarded as pivotal for a clear
school policy on communicating to parents and children and
implementing it with consistency (Richard et al., 2012).
No quantitative synthesis study yet has been conducted
including all parenting programs beyond the school-based
scope, previous studies have reported that both parent educa-
tion and home visiting are effective in preventing child
maltreatment and decreasing offensive parent–child communi-
cation (M. Chen & Chan, 2016; Larrañaga et al., 2016). A
synthesis of the effectiveness of these categories and modera-
tors will not only enhance the comparability among parenting
program studies but will also help researchers understand how
to better design and carry out their intervention programs. A
systematic review of the impact of parenting program on bully-
ing reduction will also have implications for school-based
initiatives for incorporating interventions to promote positive
school–family interactions as well as positive interactions
between all stakeholders of the school community (Larrañaga
et al., 2016). Therefore, this study aims to provide an up-to-date
synthesis of evidence on the effectiveness of anti-bullying
parenting programs by comparing the effect sizes of
component-based program designs and conducting a domain-
specific analysis of contextual factors that influence program
effectiveness, thus highlighting the implications for bullying
prevention practice and research.
Method
Search Strategy
We searched English databases including ERIC, MEDLINE,
PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts,
and PubMed. Relevant articles published in or before March
2019 were identified through title, key word, and abstract
searches. We used the following groups of search terms:
“bully*,” “victim,*” “violence,” and “bystander”; “parent”
and “family”; “prevent,*” “interven,*” and “program.” We
manually searched the reference lists of review articles to
identify further relevant studies. The electronic database
search yielded 1,810 studies, which were scanned by the
two reviewers independently according to inclusion and
exclusion criteria.
Study Selection
We included in the synthesis studies that met three criteria:
(1) evaluation of prevention or intervention programs that
focused on bullying among school-aged children; (2) the inter-
vention programs included parent involvement such as parent
training in schools or home visiting services from community,
agency, or other stakeholders; and (3) the study provided
enough data for calculating effect sizes. We excluded studies
with the following criteria from our synthesis: (1) the program
was not targeted for parents and had no parent involvement,
(2) the study was not on program evaluation but only on
3
Table 1. Quality Assessment Checklist.
Items Scoring
1. Did the study clearly Yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0
described the sample
characteristics?
2. How did the study define and Repetition/frequency component ¼ 2;
measure bullying? dichotomy ¼ 1; no clear
definition ¼ 0
3. Study design? RCT ¼ 2; pre–posttest ¼ 1;
others ¼ 0
4. Did the study clearly Yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0
describe the intervention
procedure?
5. Did the study report Yes ¼ 1; no ¼ 0
statistical method?
Note. RCT ¼ randomized controlled trial.
prevalence or risk analysis, and (3) the program did not deal
with bullying among children or adolescents. We manually
contacted authors of published articles to acquire gray literature
and missing data. A total of 1,515 studies were excluded after
abstract screening based on the above criteria, and the remain-
ing 516 studies were inspected more closely for full-text
screening.
Outcome Measures
Each study included was assigned a number for recording
purposes. We developed a coding sheet in order to define the
variables of each study. The items were coded as follows:
(1) publication information (author[s] and year of publica-
tion); (2) study characteristics (program name, country in
which the program was conducted, nature of intervention,
sampling, participants’ profiles, research design, and other
key features); and (3) research outcomes (bullying reduction,
parental risk factor reduction, and parental protective factor
enhancement). The two reviewers independently extracted the
above variables from the studies. For the research outcomes,
parents’ attitudes toward bullying, parenting skills, and
knowledge about children’s social skills were included in our
synthesis. This synthesis also summarized a variety of mea-
surements to assess the modification of risk and protective
factors as presented in the included studies. Interrater relia-
bility showed a high level of agreement of the quality assess-
ment (weighted Cohen’s k ¼ .95).
Quality Assessment
In order to assess the validity of the studies, two reviewers
independently assessed the quality of each study using a mod-
ified quality assessment checklist. The checklist contained 5
items covering the sampling and methodology as found in
Table 1. Two assessors scored the included studies based on
the 5 items, with the results shown in Table 2. All of the studies
received scores higher than 5, meaning that they provided
4
Table 2. Study Characteristics.
Study Characteristics Research Outcome

Program/Project Nature (Prevention/ Participants’ Research Risk/Protective

Study Name Name Intervention) Sample Size (I/C) Characteristics Design Parent Involvement Other Key Features Bullying Reduction Factor Quality

Kaufman et al., KiVa, Germany Group-based 9,122 (6,142/2,980) 7–12 years old, Pre–posttest; Parents receive information Lesson plans, discussion ideas, and Olweus’ (1996) Bully/ Parental warmth 6
(2018) bullying prevention Grades 2–5 2-year, five guide about bullying suggestions for group work and Victim Questionnaire and rejection:
students waves role-playing self-report EMBU Warmth
and Rejection
Scale
Niejenhuis Working with parents Group-based bullying Parent ¼ 153, Grades 3–6 RCT, 6-month Additional training course Olweus’ (1996) Bully/ Children’s self- 7
et al., (2019) in creating a prevention children ¼ 2510 students and tool kit Victim Questionnaire esteem
pleasant school, the self-report
Netherlands
Burkhart ACT Parents Raising Group-based bullying 72 (32/40) Parent or Pre–posttest; Parenting training; family- Anger management and problem- Early Childhood Bullying 6
(2012) Safe Kids (ACT- prevention caregivers 8-week based assignments solving skills, hands-on Questionnaire
PRSK) discussion and activity-based
format
Lester et al., Friendly Schools Group-based bullying Grade 2 ¼ 499, Parents RCT; 3-year Resources about ways to Self-constructed Scale Parents’ discussion 6
(2017) Friendly Families prevention Grade 4 ¼ 472, reduce bullying, build frequency with
intervention, Grade 6 ¼ 458 parenting skills, and child regarding
Australia enhance parent–child bullying
communication; home
activities with children
Kärnä et al., KiVa Antibullying Group-based bullying 8,237 Grades 4–6 Pre–posttest; Information guide about Olweus’ (1996) Bully/ 5
(2011) Program, Finland prevention students 20 hr bullying and advice for Victim Questionnaire
parents self-report
Albayrak et al., School Bullying Group-based bullying 367 (145/222) Primary school Pre–posttest; Education and counseling on Peer Bullying Behavior 6
(2016) Prevention prevention students ages 1 hr a week, bullying Scale, The Peer
Program, Turkey 12–15 total 5 hr in Victimization Scale
3 months
Tsiantis et al., Greece Group-based bullying 666 Elementary Pre–posttest; Leaflets to increase the awareness Revised Olweus’ (1996) 6
(2013) prevention school 11 weekly of school bullying Bully/Victim
students 90-min Questionnaire
workshops
Roland et al., Zero program, Group-based bullying 20,446 Students ages 7– Pre–posttest; A workbook for the pupils’ council, Four items to assess 6
(2010) Norway prevention 12 16-month materials for parents’ meetings, whether bullying
period using and a booklet for parents as well others and being
an age- as the template for the action bullied
equivalent plan all form parts of the
design program
Healy & Resilience Triple P, Family intervention 111 Families with RCT, 9 months Strategies in practicing Preschool Peer Facilitative Parenting, 7
Sanders Australia children aged responses to difficult Victimization children’s
(2014) 6–12 who peer situations Measure, Things Kids depression
reported Do
chronic
bullying
McCormac Steps to Respect Group-based bullying 608 K5 elementary Pre–posttest; Summary of skills taught in Half-page form for 5
(2014) curriculum prevention school 4-years lessons and the school’s student and
students bullying policy; parent counselor on bullying
workshop addressing report
cyber citizenship and
cyberbullying
Borowsky Primary care-based Group-based bullying 224 Children ages 7– RCT, 9 months Telephone-based parenting Child Behavior Checklist Parenting skills and 6
et al., (2004) intervention, USA prevention 15 education program punishment

(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)
Study Characteristics Research Outcome

Program/Project Nature (Prevention/ Participants’ Research Risk/Protective

Study Name Name Intervention) Sample Size (I/C) Characteristics Design Parent Involvement Other Key Features Bullying Reduction Factor Quality

Meraviglia et al., Expect Respect Group-based bullying 740 Students, 671 Grade 5 students Pre–posttest Classroom curriculum, staff Knowledge and attitudes 5
(2003) Project, USA prevention staff members and staff training, policy development, toward bullying and
members parent education, and support sexual harassment,
services incidence of bullying
Burkhart et al., ACT Raising Safe Kids Group-based bullying 52 Parents/ Pre–posttest; Parent training Early Childhood Bullying ACT Parents Raising 5
(2013) Program, USA prevention caregivers 8 weeks Questionnaire Safe Kids Scale;
with children children’s
ages 4–10 depression
Rawana et al., Strengths in Motion, Group-based bullying 265 Children in Pre–posttest, Parent workshops School resource room to facilitate Safe School Survey on 5
(2011) Canada prevention kindergarten 8 months school–family communication experiences of
through bullying/victim
Grade 8 experiences and
attitudes toward
bullying
Wong et al., Restorative Whole- Group-based bullying 1,480 Students ages Pre–posttest; One school fully implemented, two Life in School Checklist 5
(2011) School Approach, prevention 12–14 2-years schools partially and one no and Inappropriate
Hong Kong implementation; parent–teacher Assertiveness
association in running talks and subscale of the
organizing workshops for Matson Evaluation of
parents Social Skills for
Youngsters
Steiger (2011) No Bully on The Anti-bullying 32 Students ages 5– Pre-post-test, Several 1-day workshops at Self-constructed scale in 6
Solution Team, intervention 13 reported 3 months solution coaching bullies to bullying reduction
USA being targets adopt positive social skills
of bullying and
asked for
Solution
Team

Note. C ¼ control; EMBU ¼ Egna Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran Inventory; I ¼ intervention; RCT ¼ randomized controlled trial.

5
6 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
Records identified through database
searching
(n = 1,810)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 1,515)
Full-text assessed for eligibility
(n = 516)
Studies included in meta-
analysis
(n = 16)
Figure 1. Summary of the search results and article selection procedures.
descriptions of interventions and data to compute effect sizes
with satisfactory methodological quality scores. The average
score of the included studies was 5.75, reflecting their high
quality. No study was excluded in this process. Interrater relia-
bility was computed using Cohen’s k and showed a high level
of agreement (weighted k ¼ .96).
Statistical Analysis
We calculated effect sizes as a standardized mean difference
in each study using Cohen’s d (Borenstein et al., 2009). Com-
prehensive Meta-Analysis software Version 3.0 was used to
conduct this process, and the effect sizes of those studies with
95% CIs were tabulated in forest plots. A heterogeneity test
was conducted to identify the variance among studies. Q test
and I2 statistics were used to estimate and represent hetero-
geneity among studies. Subgroup analysis was then per-
formed to test the effect sizes within or between different
subgroups. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the
effects of small studies, and publication bias was tested using
the Trim and Fill test.
Records excluded, with reasons
(n = 999)
- Reported other violence types
except school bullying (n = 399)
- Bullying related health or mental
health studies (n = 198)
- Perception or attitudes studies
without intervention (n = 50)
- Commentary or discussion papers
without sufficient data (n = 352)
Articles excluded, with reasons (n =
500)
- Prevalence studies without
intervention (n = 478)
- Intervention with no parent
component (n = 22)
Result
Study Characteristics
Figure 1 describes the process of selecting these studies as
detailed in Method section. Ultimately, 16 studies reporting
16 programs met the criteria and were included in the meta-
analysis. The impacts of the 16 parenting programs in bullying
intervention were evaluated, and the study and program char-
acteristics are summarized in Table 2. Sample sizes ranged
from 32 to 20,446, and the total number of participants was
46,361, which constituted a large sample for analysis. Projects
were conducted in various countries and districts including
Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Finland, Turkey, Greece,
Norway, United States, Canada, and Hong Kong. Participants
recruited were general population without detection of bullying
victimization in 15 programs, whereas 1 program recruited
students who reported being targets of peer bullying. Students
were recruited from schools in 12 programs, whereas the other
4 programs invited parents or caregivers directly. All the pro-
grams used parenting components as the main intervention
approach while information and training were delivered in dif-
ferent forms.
 Figure 2. Effect size of all included studies. Note. Heterogeneity: Q ¼ 4,032.281, df ¼ 15, p ¼ .000, I2¼99.628.

7
8 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
Table 3. Effect Size of Different Intervention Types.
Design/Intervention Parent Information Training Courses
RCT k ¼ 1, 2.120 k ¼ 3, 0.925
[2.061, 2.179]*** [0.162, 1.689]*
Pre–posttest k ¼ 6, 0.334 k ¼ 6, 0.463
[0.199, 0.469]*** [0.079, 0.847]*
Note. RCT ¼ randomized controlled trial.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
Training contents comprised ways to reduce bullying,
problem-solving and parenting skills, home activities with chil-
dren, and other information about support services for bullying
reduction. However, the intervention strategies varied among
programs; 5 programs provided leaflets or information guides
only, 10 organized workshops or training lessons at schools,
and 1 used telephone-based education. None of the studies
specified types of bullying, while only one addressed the issue
of cyberbullying. Of the parenting programs, four were
designed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the
others were evaluated using pre- and posttests. The duration
of the programs ranged from 1-hr training sessions to 4-year
follow-up interventions. Various measurements were
employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the parenting pro-
grams on bullying reduction or related risk factors. We cate-
gorized the outcome measurements of the programs into two
types, namely bullying reduction and risk factor reduction, and
calculated the effect sizes by all the outcomes.
General Synthesis of Effect Size
As shown in Figure 2, the overall effect size of all the included
studies was 0.640 (95% CI [0.239, 1.041]) under the random
effects model. The result of the heterogeneity test (Q ¼
4,032.281, p < .001) was larger than df (15), revealing the wide
variance among the results of the included studies. Over 99%
of the total variation across studies was due to heterogeneity
(I2 ¼ 99.628), which shows the wide variance in effect size.
The program effects of each program ranged from small to
large, with three studies showing very large effect sizes of
greater than 1.5 (Lester et al., 2017; Niejenhuis et al., 2019;
Wong et al., 2011). Due to the significant heterogeneity in the
effect sizes of the studies, we continued to perform the sub-
group and moderator analyses.
We then separated the overall effect size between research
designs and intervention types to compare the individual effect
sizes and test heterogeneity. As shown in Table 3, four studies
used RCT design: One provided information to parents and the
other three conducted training courses (d ¼ .925, 95% CI
[0.162, 1.689]), and they all showed significant effects in bul-
lying reduction. For the 12 studies employing a pre- and postt-
est design, 6 provided information to parents (d ¼ .334, 95% CI
[0.199, 0.469]) and the other 6 conducted training courses
(d ¼ .463, 95% CI [0.079, 0.847]), and both groups showed
moderate effects of the parenting program.
Subgroup Analyses of Program Outcomes
Based on the information provided in the studies, other chil-
dren- and parenting-related outcomes, including children’s
depression, parents’ positive and negative parenting, discus-
sion with children about bullying, and children’s empathy,
were analyzed to see the impacts bullying programs had on
them. As shown in Table 4, positive parenting (d ¼ .180,
95% CI [0.036, 0.323]), negative parenting (d ¼ .195, 95%
CI [0.061, 0.329]), parents’ discussion with children about
bullying (d ¼ .820, 95% CI [0.742, 0.898]), and children’s
empathy (d ¼ .092, 95% CI [0.049, 0.135]) were significantly
changed after program intervention. No significant result was
found for children’s depression. As shown in Figure 3, the
intervention effectiveness varied greatly but was positive
among all the programs.
Publication Bias
Most of the studies were distributed symmetrically around the
combined effect size as shown in Figure 4. Fifteen studies are
located at the top-center of the funnel graph and only one study
appeared toward the bottom of the graph. This symmetric shape
indicated no publication bias, and this was also shown by
Begg–Mazumdar rank correlation and Egger’s correlation tests
(Begg & Mazumdar, 1994). Trim and Fill tests showed that no
outlier study was removed, making the overall p value
insignificant.
Discussion
Parenting interventions are increasingly being implemented as
part of strategies for bullying intervention across countries and
districts of the world. Continuous exploration and analysis of
effective program components are therefore needed for more
effective application. This study is among the first to system-
atically review the role of parents in bullying intervention
programs.
The results of the meta-analysis suggest that students in the
treatment conditions of the parenting programs scored signifi-
cantly lower on bullying victimization. Based on the 16
evidence-based programs found in the database, our results
demonstrated a significant desirable effect on bullying. The
overall estimated effect size (Cohen’s d ¼ .640) was higher
than those reported in previous studies, which included school-
based programs only (Huang et al., 2019; Ttofi & Farrington,
2011). This might be attributed to the inclusion of studies that
conducted interventions outside the school context. Data from
the RCTs and the pre- and posttest design studies show evi-
dence of highly significant effects of parenting interventions on
bullying reduction. Different measurements were adopted,
however, and the effect sizes of different program outcomes
varied greatly.
We then conducted exploratory subgroup analyses to exam-
ine children- and parenting-related factors. Parents’ discussion
with children is a protective factor for bullying. Two other
Chen et al.
Table 4. Effect Sizes of Protective and Risk Factors.
Factors No.
Children’s depression 2 0.381
Parents’ discussion with children about bullying 1 0.820
Children’s empathy 1 0.092
Positive parenting 2 0.180
Negative parenting 3 0.195
Total 9 0.254
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Effect Size
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
posest 3 months 16 months 2 years 3 years
Time points
Figure 3. Effect size at different time point.
protective factors, children’s empathy and positive parenting,
though their effect sizes are small, may also contribute to bul-
lying reduction. This is consistent with a previous meta-
analysis showing that parent training was associated with a
decrease in bully perpetration and victimization (Ttofi & Far-
rington, 2011). We also found that parenting styles, children’s
empathy, and parent–child interaction regarding bullying were
significantly related to effectiveness of program intervention.
Negative parenting usually leads to serious consequences, such
as physical injuries to children or child maltreatment, and par-
enting programs are believed to reduce changeable parental
risk factors toward child rearing (Chen et al., 2016; Gershoff,
2002). By comparison, previous studies have also found that
strength-based programs for improving parenting skills and
focusing more on positive factors achieve relatively more
effective postprogram outcomes (Holzer et al., 2006). By invit-
ing parents to join in the bullying program, parents may learn
more skills and give more support to their children when con-
fronting bullying.
One study in the current analysis addressed issues of parent-
ing programs and children’s cyberbullying victimization
(McCormac, 2014). Available studies have shown that cyber-
bullying victimization is linked to parent and family character-
istics, such as poor parent–children relationships, lack of
parental emotional support, offensive communication, and
9
Heterogeneity
Random Effect Sizes 95% CI Q df p I2
[0.060, 0.821] 2.155 1 0.142 53.607
[0.742, 0.898]*** 0.000 0 1.000 0.000
[0.049, 0.135]*** 0.000 0 1.000 0.000
[0.036, 0.323]* 0.741 1 0.389 0.000
[0.061, 0.329]** 1.303 2 0.521 0.000
[0.219, 0.289]*** 260.646* 8 0.000 0.000
parental violence (Chang et al., 2015; Q. Chen et al., 2018;
Larrañaga et al., 2016; Safaria, 2015). Children with violent
parents reported stronger feelings of loneliness and more com-
munication problems with parents and may spend more time in
cyberspace for social support than they do at home (Q. Chen
et al., 2018; Larrañaga et al., 2016). Victimization and violence
witness within the family environment may bring greater risk
for children to internalize their weakness as a stable personal
trait and increase future possibilities of being cyberbullied (Q.
Chen et al., 2018; Wilczenski et al., 1997). Therefore, it is
suggested that future parenting programs provide more inter-
vention components regarding parents’ discussion with chil-
dren about bullying, thereby enhancing children’s empathy
and positive parenting skills.
However, some review studies have found that programs
with parent training/workshops were not significantly more
effective than other programs in improving parental compo-
nents (Huang et al., 2019). A number of parents still reported
a failure to deal with parental stress and limited effective par-
enting skills, indicating the limitations of parenting programs
in addressing all kinds of parental risk factors related to child
bullying victimization (Chen et al., 2016). These varied out-
comes could also be explained by the varied intervention cate-
gories and implementation outcomes provided by the included
studies. Most data on parental components were based on the
study descriptions, which might have led to neglect of some
information about parental components that were not described
in existing articles. For example, in terms of understanding
which types of parental component, such as parent training,
parenting meeting, home visiting or community workshops, are
involved, it is recommended that future research include data
on the percentage of fathers/mothers involved, degree of
engagement and frequency of activities when possible.
Effect size synthesized via different time points showed that
intervention effectiveness varied greatly across time but
remained positive in the reported timeslots. Parenting programs
on bullying may have a long-term positive effect in preventing
bullying, while long-term interventions, especially home visit-
ing approaches, are costly (Mikton & Butchart, 2009).
Researchers are expected to design further studies that employ
longitudinal follow-up designs and involve more stakeholders,
thereby providing more valuable information for comparison of
program characteristics that can be used to improve the
10
Figure 4. Funnel plot of standard error by Std diff in means.
cost-effectiveness of programs. Regarding the parenting train-
ing programs conducted in school environments, most were
generally initiated and implemented by local practitioners and
school teachers in school workshop and curricula, but inter-
viewing school administrators and teachers who are responsi-
ble for including parents in bullying prevention efforts would
also be informative.
Given the limited number of studies included in this
analysis, the results should be interpreted with caution.
First, we coded the related child and parent factors into
compliance scores, which did not allow for additional com-
parisons. For example, the majority of the programs in the
eligible studies recruited parents who might have already
been motivated to improve their aptitude, while future stud-
ies should consider facilitating those reluctant to participate
but in need of support regarding parent–child relationship
training. The small number of studies with such factors may
have resulted in a biased estimated effect size of these fac-
tors. Some factors were present in a relatively low number
of studies, and some of the studies were very small or
poorly reported, thus creating an unclear risk of bias. It
would be ideal for future researchers to include compliance
scores in their data collection and analysis.
Implications for Policy, Research, and Practice
These limitations aside, results of the meta-analysis have sev-
eral important clinical implications. The included parenting
programs revealed a pattern in which parenting components
yielded significant intervention effects for bullying reduction
and parent–child interaction. It is recommended that future
research report data on the percentage of parent attendance,
quality of implementation, and frequency of activities where
possible. Researchers may consider respectively taking into
consideration the disjunctures between how bullying is defined
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
by adult authorities versus by children. We provide evidence
that can be used to enhance policy and practice for effectively
enabling parent involvement in bullying behavior reduction,
increasing parent–children communication about bullying, and
enhancing parenting skills. Future researchers and practitioners
may further explore the impact of school–family partnerships
and their reliance on each other to help reduce bullying. More
comprehensive screening and risk assessment based on the
correlates of bullying should be developed in order to critically
assess the range and consequences of victimization to which
children have been potentially exposed, thereby providing
more individualized service and improving intervention
effectiveness.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project
was supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 17CSH076).
ORCID iD
Yuhong Zhu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-7169
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Albayrak, S., Yıldız, A., & Erol, S. (2016). Assessing the effect
of school bullying prevention programs on reducing bullying.
Children and Youth Services Review, 63, 1–9.
Avellar, S., Paulsell, D., Sama-Miller, E., Del Grosso, P., Akers, L., &
Kleinman, R. (2012). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness
Chen et al.
review: Executive summary. Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a
rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50,
1088–1101.
Bidarra, Z. S., Lessard, G., & Dumont, A. (2016). Co-occurrence
ofintimate partner violence and child sexual abuse: Prevalence,
riskfactors and related issues. Child Abuse & Neglect, 55, 10–21.
Bilsky, S. A., Cole, D. A., Dukewich, T. L., Martin, N. C., Sinclair, K.
R., Tran, C. V., Roeder, K. M., Felton, J. W., Tilghman-Osborne,
C., Weitlauf, A. S., & Maxwell, M. A. (2013). Does supportive
parenting mitigate the longitudinal effects of peer victimization on
depressive thoughts and symptoms in children? Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 122, 406–419.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
*Borowsky, I. W., Mozayeny, S., Stuenkel, K., & Ireland, M. (2004).
Effects of a primary care-based intervention on violent behavior
and injury in children. Pediatrics, 114, e392–e399.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human develop-
ment. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 37–43.
Bruce, A. E., Cole, D. A., Dallaire, D. H., Jacquez, F. M., Pineda, A.
Q., & LaGrange, B. (2006). Relations of parenting and negative
life events to cognitive diatheses for depression in children.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 321–333.
*Burkhart, K. M. (2012). Parental factors contributing to bullying and
the effects of the ACT parents raising safe kids program on the
reduction of bullying. University of Toronto.
*Burkhart, K. M., Knox, M., & Brockmyer, J. (2013). Pilot evaluation
of the ACT raising safe kids program on children’s bullying beha-
vior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 942–951.
Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Miao, N. F., Chen, P. H., Lee, C. M.,
Chiang, J. T., & Pan, Y. C. (2015). The relationship between
parental mediation and Internet addiction among adolescents, and
the association with cyberbullying and depression. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 57, 21–28.
Chen, M., & Chan, K. L. (2016). Effects of parenting programs
on child maltreatment prevention: A meta-analysis. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 17, 88–104.
Chen, Q., Lo, C. K., Zhu, Y., Cheung, A., Chan, K. L., & Ip, P. (2018).
Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in
a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 180–187.
Chen, Q., Sun, X., Xie, Q., Li, J., & Chan, K. L. (2019). The impacts of
internal migration on child victimization in China: A meta-analy-
sis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20, 40–50.
Cheng, Y. L., Newman, I. M., Qu, M., Mbulo, L., Chai, Y., Chen, Y.,
& Shell, D. F. (2010). Being bullied and psychosocial adjustment
among middle school students in China. Journal of School Health,
80, 193–199.
Cross, D., & Barnes, A. (2014). Using systems theory to understand
and respond to family influences on children’s bullying behavior:
Friendly Schools Friendly Families Program. Theory into Practice,
53, 293–299.
Cross, D., Lester, L., Pearce, N., Barnes, A., & Beatty, S. (2018). A
group randomized controlled trial evaluating parent involvement
11
in whole-school actions to reduce bullying. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 111, 255–267.
Cross, D., Monks, H., Hall, M., Shaw, T., Pintabona, Y., Erceg, E.,
Hamilton, G., Roberts, C., Waters, S., & Lester, L. (2011). Three-
year results of the friendly schools whole-of-school intervention on
children’s bullying behaviour. British Educational Research
Journal, 37, 105–129.
Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to
reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews,
5, i–148.
Feeney, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2019). Attachment, conflict and relation-
ship quality: Laboratory-based and clinical insights. Current Opin-
ion in Psychology, 25, 127–131.
Filene, J. H., Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., & Cachat, P. (2013).
Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, S100–S109.
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home and
bullying at school. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 165–179.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated
child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical
review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579.
Harshman, K. L. (2014). Assessing effectiveness of age-appropriate
curriculum on internet safety education and cyberbullying preven-
tion [Doctoral dissertation]. Grand Canyon University.
*Healy, K. L., & Sanders, M. R. (2014). Randomized controlled trial
of a family intervention for children bullied by peers. Behavior
Therapy, 45, 760–777.
Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual
definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research and
academic community. Australian Research Alliance for Children
and Youth.
Holt, M. K., Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concor-
dance about bullying involvement and family characteristics
related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School
Violence, 8, 42–63.
Holzer, P. J., Higgins, J. R., Bromfield, L. M., Richardson, N., &
Higgins, D. J. (2006). The effectiveness of parent education and
home visiting child maltreatment prevention programs. Child
Abuse Prevention Issues, 24, 1–24.
Huang, Y., Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Hong, J. S. (2019). A
meta-analytic review of school-based anti-bullying programs with
a parent component. International Journal of Bullying Prevention,
1, 32–44.
Hutson, E. (2016). Cyberbullying in adolescence: A concept analysis.
Advances in Nursing Science, 39, 60–70.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences
and compromised academic performance across middle school
grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 152–173.
Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A
meta-analytic review of components associated with parent train-
ing program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
36, 567–589.
*Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., &
Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-
bullying program: Grades 4–6. Child Development, 82, 311–330.
12
*Kaufman, T. M., Kretschmer, T., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R.
(2018). Why does a universal anti-bullying program not help all
children? Explaining persistent victimization during an interven-
tion. Prevention Science, 19, 822–832.
Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., Ovejero, A., & Navarro, R. (2016). Lone-
liness, parent-child communication and cyberbullying victimiza-
tion among Spanish youths. Computers in Human Behavior, 65,
1–8.
*Lester, L., Pearce, N., Waters, S., Barnes, A., Beatty, S., & Cross, D.
(2017). Family involvement in a whole-school bullying interven-
tion: Mothers’ and fathers’ communication and influence with
children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2716–2727.
*McCormac, M. E. (2014). Preventing and responding to bullying:
An elementary school’s 4-year journey. Professional School
Counseling, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0001800112
*Meraviglia, M. G., Becker, H., Rosenbluth, B., Sanchez, E., &
Robertson, T. (2003). The expect respect project: Creating a pos-
itive elementary school climate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
18, 1347–1360.
Mikton, C., & Butchart, A. (2009). Child maltreatment prevention: A
systematic review of reviews. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 87, 353–361.
*Niejenhuis, C., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2019). Working with
parents to counteract bullying: A randomized controlled trial of an
intervention to improve parent-school cooperation. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12522
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping
boys. Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire.
Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), Univer-
sity of Bergen.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: Impli-
cations for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 69–74.
*Rawana, J. S., Norwood, S. J., & Whitley, J. (2011). A mixed-method
evaluation of a strength-based bullying prevention program. Cana-
dian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 283–300.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer
victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34,
244–252.
Richard, J. F., Schneider, B. H., & Mallet, P. (2012). Revisiting the
whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole
school. School Psychology International, 33, 263–284.
*Roland, E., Bru, E., Midthassel, U. V., & Vaaland, G. S. (2010). The
zero programme against bullying: Effects of the programme in the
context of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying. Social Psy-
chology of Education, 13, 41–55.
Safaria, T. (2015). Are daily spiritual experiences, self-esteem, and
family harmony predictors of cyberbullying among high school
student? International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology,
4, 23–33.
View publication stats
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
*Steiger, A. D. (2011). Solution team: A program evaluation of an
anti-bullying intervention. Institute of Integral Studies.
*Tsiantis, A. C. J., Beratis, I. N., Syngelaki, E. M., Stefanakou, A.,
Asimopoulos, C., Sideridis, G. D., & Tsiantis, J. (2013). The
effects of a clinical prevention program on bullying, victimization,
and attitudes toward school of elementary school students.
Behavioral Disorders, 38, 243–257.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-
based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-
analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7,
27–56.
Wilczenski, F. L., Steegmann, R., Braun, M., Feeley, F., Griffin, J.,
Horowitz, T., & Olson, S. (1997). Children as victims and victi-
mizers: Intervention to promote “fairplay.” School Psychology
International, 18, 81–89.
*Wong, D. S., Cheng, C. H., Ngan, R. M., & Ma, S. K. (2011).
Program effectiveness of a restorative whole-school approach for
tackling school bullying in Hong Kong. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 846–862.
Woodin, E. M., Sotskova, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2013). Intimate
partner violence assessment in an historical context: Divergent
approaches and opportunities for progress. Sex Roles, 69, 120–130.
Zhu, Y., & Chan, K. L. (2015). Prevalence and correlates of school
bullying victimization in Xi’an, China. Violence and Victims, 30,
714–732.
Zhu, Y., Chan, K. L., & Chen, J. (2018). Bullying victimization among
Chinese middle school students: The role of family violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1958–1977.
Zhu, Y., Li, W., O’Brien, J. E., & Liu, T. T. (2019). Parent–child
attachment moderates the associations between cyberbullying vic-
timization and adolescents’ health/mental health problems: An
exploration of cyberbullying victimization among Chinese adoles-
cents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260519854559
Author Biographies
Qiqi Chen is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Applied Social
Sciences at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research
interests are family violence and peer victimization prevention.
Yuhong Zhu, PhD, is an associate professor at Renmin University of
China, Department of Social Work & Social Policy, School of Sociol-
ogy & Population Studies. Her main research interests include child
protection, family violence, and adolescents’ health issue.
Wing Hong Chui, PhD, is a professor in Department of Social and
Behavioral Sciences at City University of Hong Kong. His primary
areas of research are in juvenile delinquency, social work, youth stud-
ies, and probation and prison studies.