1 / 17

DAPHNE II Questionnaire Bologna Team Thessaloniki, 20-21 June 2011

DAPHNE II Questionnaire Bologna Team Thessaloniki, 20-21 June 2011. BOLOGNA TEAM. COORDINATORS Maria Luisa Genta Antonella Brighi Annalisa Guarini. STAFF Sandra Nicoletti (researcher) Pia Colangelo (researcher) Silvia Galli (advice for statistical analyses). 2.

shalom
Download Presentation

DAPHNE II Questionnaire Bologna Team Thessaloniki, 20-21 June 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DAPHNE II Questionnaire Bologna Team Thessaloniki, 20-21 June 2011

  2. BOLOGNA TEAM • COORDINATORS • Maria Luisa Genta • Antonella Brighi • Annalisa Guarini • STAFF • Sandra Nicoletti (researcher) • Pia Colangelo (researcher) • Silvia Galli (advice for statistical analyses) 2

  3. METHOD: participants First data collection (2007-2008): 1964 questionnaires Second data collection (2010-2011): 1641 questionnaires GENDER χ2(1, N=3523)=10.30, p=.001

  4. METHOD: participants AGE

  5. METHOD: participants χ2(2, N=3571)=62.94, p<.001 LIVING LOCATION DISABILITY χ2(1, N=3551)=0.04, p=.844

  6. METHOD: participants χ2(2, N=3441)=2.87, p<.239 FATHER’S EDUCATION MOTHER’S EDUCATION χ2(2, N=3532)=16.31, p<.001

  7. METHOD: the questionnaire • Used an anonymous self-report questionnaire • Questionnaires were carried out in a school setting, during school time and with teacher and researcher supervision • Three sections: I: about you II: about your school III: about bullying and cyberbullying

  8. METHOD: the questionnaire I SECTION: about you • Self esteem: Revised version of Melotti & Passini, 2002. Included six measures of self esteem: global, sport, school, body, peers and family. • Loneliness: Adapted from Melotti, 2006, included four measures of loneliness related to: • Parents – closeness to family • Peers – closeness to friends, members of their peer group • Aversion – how much participants like/dislike being alone • Affinity – how participants feel about being alone

  9. METHOD: the questionnaire II SECTION: about school • Eight questions relating to school climate III SECTION: About bullying and cyberbullying • Based on existing questionnaire developed by Smith et al (2005), shortened and adapted by Ortega (2006). • Includes questions on involvement in four types of bullying: direct, indirect, through mobiles and through the internet

  10. RESULTS TECHNOLOGIES ACCESSIBILITY • Internet accessχ2(1, N=3273)=100.49, p<.001, increase • Internet in ownbedroomχ2(1, N=3273)=33.57, p<.001, increase

  11. RESULTS SCHOOL CLIMATE • Question 1 χ2(1, N=3170)=10.32, p=.001, increase • Question 2 χ2(1, N=3106)=7.28, p=.007, increase • Question 3 χ2(1, N=3091)=6.49, p=.011, increase

  12. RESULTS SCHOOL CLIMATE • Question 6 χ2(1, N=3114)=3.99, p=.046, increase

  13. RESULTS DIRECT BULLYING • Victimsχ2(2, N=3263)=13.54, p=.001, decrease • Bulliesχ2(2, N=3248)=20.00, p<.001, decrease • Bystandersχ2(2, N=3256)=25.31, p<.001, decrease

  14. RESULTS INDIRECT BULLYING • Victimsχ2(2, N=3254)=9.51, p=.009, decrease • Bulliesχ2(2, N=3245)=23.84, p<.001, decrease • Bystandersχ2(2, N=3245)=27.86, p<.001, decrease

  15. RESULTS CYBERBULLYING (MOBILE) • Victimsχ2(2, N=3207)=2.64, p=.267 • Bulliesχ2(2, N=3250)=12.32, p=.002, decrease • Bystandersχ2(2, N=3250)=14.97, p=.001, decrease

  16. RESULTS CYBERBULLYING (INTERNET) • Victimsχ2(2, N=3221)=6.68, p=.035, increase • Bulliesχ2(2, N=3223)=1.49, p=.474 • Bystandersχ2(2, N=3225)=0.31, p=.855

  17. OPEN QUESTIONS • How can we explain this decrease in the incidence of traditional bullying (both direct and indirect) and cyberbullying (through Internet) in three years? • What about the second data collection in Spain and UK? • Which parts of the questionnaire can be analysed in order to compare the two collections among Countries? • What about pubblications on such data?

More Related