Reciprocal Associations Between Interpersonal and Values Dimensions of School Climate and Peer Victimization in Elementary School Children

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 480-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Leadbeater ◽  
Paweena Sukhawathanakul ◽  
David Smith ◽  
François Bowen
2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald F. Giesbrecht ◽  
Bonnie J. Leadbeater ◽  
Stuart W. S. Macdonald

AbstractTransactional models suggest that peer victimization results from both individual and context differences, and understanding these differences may point to important targets for prevention and interventions that reduce victimization. Multilevel modeling was used to examine within-person (aggression and emotional dysregulation), between-person (sex and age), and between-school (participation in a victimization prevention program) factors that influence changes in physical and relational victimization over the first three years of elementary school. Children (n = 423) reported their experiences of peer victimization at entry into Grade 1 and at the end of Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3. On average, trajectories of both physical and relational victimization declined. However, for individual children, teacher-rated aggression was associated with increases in physical and relational victimization, while emotional dysregulation was associated with attenuation of longitudinal declines in physical victimization and increases in relational victimization. Individual differences in sex and age at entry into Grade 1 did not significantly influence victimization trajectories over Grades 1 to 3. Children who participated in the WITS® victimization prevention program showed significant declines in physical and relational victimization. Levels of victimization among nonparticipants remained stable. Implications of child and context characteristics for preventing peer victimization in elementary school are discussed.


1978 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Nodar

The teachers of 2231 elementary school children were asked to identify those with known or suspected hearing problems. Following screening, the data were compared. Teachers identified 5% of the children as hearing-impaired, while screening identified only 3%. There was agreement between the two procedures on 1%. Subsequent to the teacher interviews, rescreening and tympanometry were conducted. These procedures indicated that teacher screening and tympanometry were in agreement on 2% of the total sample or 50% of the hearing-loss group. It was concluded that teachers could supplement audiometry, particularly when otoscopy and typanometry are not available.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document