01443410701309258

This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA]On: 03 April 2015, At: 13:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology: AnInternational Journal of ExperimentalEducational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Prevention and Reduction ofBehavioural Problems in School: Anevaluation of the Respect programSigrun K. Ertesvg a & Grete Srensen Vaaland aa University of Stavanger , NorwayPublished online: 26 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Sigrun K. Ertesvg & Grete Srensen Vaaland (2007) Prevention andReduction of Behavioural Problems in School: An evaluation of the Respect program, EducationalPsychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 27:6, 713-736, DOI:10.1080/01443410701309258

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410701309258

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5

Educational PsychologyVol. 27, No. 6, December 2007, pp. 713736

ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-5820 (online)/07/06071324 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI 10.1080/01443410701309258

Prevention and Reduction of Behavioural Problems in School: An evaluation of the Respect program

Sigrun K. Ertesvg* and Grete Srensen VaalandUniversity of Stavanger, NorwayTaylor and Francis LtdCEDP_A_230827.sgm10.1080/01443410701309258Educational Psychology0144-3410 (print)/1469-5820 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & [email protected]

Disobedient pupils, off-task behaviour, and bullying are common problems in schools in manycountries; they interfere with teaching, create an unsafe learning environment, and challenge thestaff. Effective programs involving entire schools to prevent and reduce such problems havealready been designed and implemented. However, most interventions target one type of problembehaviour, and their effects have only been evaluated in the short term. The Respect program1 isbroad in the sense that it targets not just one but several types of behaviour in order to prevent andreduce problem behaviour. The program was implemented among all the staff and pupils at threeprimary schools and one secondary school in Norway. A cohort longitudinal design was used inevaluating the program. Pupils in the four schools reported a decrease in the four areas of problembehaviour. This decrease was sustained or continued after the intervention period for some typesof behaviour, even though the results differed between grade levels. In terms of effect size, theresults were small to moderate for most grade levels. Although this analysis was non-experimentalin nature, it does document sustainable change resulting from intervention in an entire school andsuggests that this could be maintained in the long term.

Numerous studies conducted over the past three decades have documented both thecharacteristics and negative effects of different types of behavioural problem (e.g.,Coie & Jacobs, 1993; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Parker & Asher, 1987; Pepler &Rubin, 1991; Reid, 1993; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). Much is currentlyknown about how to prevent and reduce the behaviour problems of todays childrenand youth (e.g., Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Baumbarger, 1999; Leff, Power, Manz,Costigan, & Nabors, 2001; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Walker & Shinn, 2002). Ofthe research-based interventions, both Norwegian and international (e.g.,Grossmann et al., 1997; Manger, Eikeland, & Asbjrnsen, 2002; Olweus, 2005;

*Corresponding author. Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger, N-4036Stavanger, Norway. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5

714 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

Ortega, del-Rey, & Mora-Merchan, 2004; Roland, Bru, Midthassel, & Vaaland,submitted), most or all have had a limited focus on one type of problem behaviour,such as bullying or social skills. Although such programs can be effective, thislimited approach has important weaknesses. It has been argued that these programsare probably both difficult to integrate into a general school policy and difficult tomaintain (e.g., Ager & Cole, 1991; Roland, 2000; Roland & Galloway, 2002).

Developing and implementing interventions that produce sustainable change inpupils behavioural problems presents a challenge (Greenberg, 2004). Furthermore,most interventions intended to prevent or reduce problem behaviour strive toimprove classroom behaviour by focusing on children as individuals, yet very few doso by focusing on class-level or school-level variables. Instead of adopting a child-centred focus, programs might instead focus on promoting prosocial behaviour byworking with teachers to improve the quality of teaching and social life at the class-room and school levels. In other words, they should have an effect on the system ofthe school. This would enable simultaneous work on preventing and reducingproblem behaviour, on enhancing teachers professional development, and onimprovements at the school and classroom levels. This approach is expected toreduce problem behaviour in the longer term and increase the quality of the overalllearning environment.

Interventions aimed at delivering more positive outcomes for children and youthmust incorporate actions designed to keep problems from emerging, to reverse orpreclude any harmful effects of exposure to known risk factors, and to reduce ratherthan reverse any harm caused to those pupils most greatly involved (Walker &Shinn, 2002). To address the needs of all pupils in a given school, including thosewho are judged not to be at risk, actions must be coordinated at all these levels andmeaningfully involve pupils, parents, teachers, and management.

Effective programs have: (1) tended to involve multiple agents within the interven-tion; (2) lasted more than a year so that the results could be fully registered; (3)consisted of multiple components; and (4) been implemented across multiple settings(Greenberg et al., 1999; Leff et al., 2001; Walker, Golly, McLane, & Kimmich, 2005).

A new intervention program was designed to apply a broad approach to theprevention and reduction of problem behaviour in general, and in particular disobe-dience, off-task behaviour, and bullying among the pupils. The Respect programworks at the system level by including all school personnel, pupils, and parents toimprove the quality of the school at the individual, classroom, and school levels.

This study is part of a larger evaluation of the program. The article describes theRespect program and its scientific basis, reporting the results of the pilot evaluationof program effects on four types of problem behaviour; disobedience, off-task behav-iour, bullying and becoming a victim of bullying. The program addressed all profes-sional groups at the school in order to reduce these four types of problem behaviour.With this aim in mind, there was a focus on leadership, collaboration, collectivestrategies, and a policy of prevention and intervention. Accordingly, the programconcentrates on the roles and responsibilities of the adults as well as on changingpupil behaviour through changing adult behaviour. A key question was whether the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5

Behavioural Problems 715

program would produce any short- or long-term effects on levels of pupil disobedi-ence, off-task behaviour, and bullying.

Behavioural Problems and the Teachers Role

Some schools enter a process of deterioration when pupils perceive that those pupilswho behave violently or break rules go undetected or, if detected, are not stopped(Toby, 1993). Additionally, teachers differ in the strategies they employ when facedwith disobedience, and also in how successfully they deal with undesirable pupilbehaviour (Pianta, 1999; Rydell & Henricsson, 2004). When teachers correct problembehaviour, they also affect future pupil behaviour. Relationship-based discipline andintervention involves teachers developing distinct expectations of pupil behaviour. Itresults in less disobedient behaviour and less disturbance of schoolwork whencombined with rewards for pro-social behaviour and consequences for behaviour thatdiverges from the norm (Bear, 1998; Brophy, 1996; Hughes, 2002; Kounin, 1970).Nevertheless, teachers repertoires of intervention tactics appear rather limited whenthey are required to deal with disturbing pupil behaviour (Rydell & Henricsson, 2004).

Discipline characterized by coercion and aggression is related to a high level ofdisobedience and greater distraction in pupils work (Lewis, 2001). Pupils reports ofthe relationship between disobedient behaviour and teachers disciplinary stylessuggest there is reason to expect that improvements in teaching style and classroomleadership will impact on pupil behaviour (Bear, 1998; Kounin, 1970). Thus, strength-ening classroom leadership implies clarifying the norms and expectations of pupilbehaviour and permits the teacher to intervene effectively when standards have beenbreached. Additionally, effective classroom leadership has been found to be related tothe spent time on-task (Mitchem, Young, West, & Benyo, 2001; Roland, 1999). Bully-ing among peers is also sensitive to the classroom climate which, in turn, is influencedby classroom leadership (Bru, Murberg, & Stephens, 2001; Roland & Galloway,2002). Furthermore, a unified strategy incorporating a shared understanding of adultroles and responsibilities and a shared commitment among staff can effectively reduceproblem behaviour in schools (Marr, Audett, White, Ellis, & Algozzine, 2002).

Aggression is related to the four types of problem behaviour addressed in thestudy, as a high level of aggression is related to a high level of problem behaviour (dela Barra, Toledo, & Rodriguez, 2005; Dodge, 1991; Farmer, Goforth, Clemmer, &Thompson, 2004; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Roland & Idse, 2001; Vaaland &Roland, submitted). Aggression has also been found to be a relatively stable charac-teristic (Adams, Bukowski, & Bagwell, 2005; Olweus, 1979).

Intervention

Principles

The intervention program was built around four key principles based on theory,previous research, and experience of the development of disobedience, off-task

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


behaviour, and bullying as well as interventions designed to prevent and reducethese problems.

First, adults are supposed to act as sources of authority. This implies an authorita-tive approach that, in principle, aims to create a warm and caring environmentcharacterized by positive interest and adult involvement on the one hand and clearstandards of acceptable behaviour on the other (Roland & Vaaland, 2005). Such acombination aims to prevent problems, and also has the additional dual purpose ofmanaging behaviour in the short term and developing responsibility among pupils inthe long term.

Second, the program is broad-based, in the sense that it aims to prevent andreduce several types of behavioural problems, involve all participants in school(pupils, teachers, parents, management, etc.) and intervene at pupil, classroom andschool levels.

Third, adults should act consistently in order to ensure they make an impact onpupil behaviour. The program incorporates consistencyin the interventionmeasures implemented, in attitudes and actions, between teachers, and a generallevel of substantial consistency. This means that each new initiative depends on theprevious ones while adding to the intervention. For example, the authoritativeapproach should characterize every teachers actions with regard to every single pupil.This approach is prescribed for teachers classroom leadership and all their actionsdirected at classes or groups of pupils. The pupils thus experience identical attitudesand approaches regardless of teacher. All teachers should also demonstrate intra-personal consistency across time and situation. Furthermore, the principle of consis-tency implies a shared understanding of and commitment among staff to the workrequired for preventing and reducing problem behaviour. Consequently, all staff reactin the same way to pupils violating behavioural standards at school. Additionally,substantial consistency will increase a teachers influence on pupil behaviour, forexample when the teacher communicates in ways that underpin connections betweengood academic work and good behavioural standards.

Fourth and finally, the program is based on the principle of continuity, whichimplies a long-term commitment to the previous three principles. This means thatnew actions are implemented only once the previous ones have been established.Thus each new action will be added to the string of previous actions. The activitiesfollow one another in a specific order; the first ones determine the conditions forthose that follow (Fandrem & Roland, 2000). In addition, any actions implementedneed to be continued over timefor months or even years. However, the Respectprogram is not a detailed one. From its general principles and examples, a schoolwill need to develop activities and solutions at the school, class, and individual levelsthat maintain focus and develop skills.

Main Approaches

There were four main strategies to the implementation of the program: a wholeschool approach, classroom leadership, careful timing, and full commitment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Whole school approach. Elements in the whole school approach were: strengtheningleadership at the school level (Roland, 1999), developing systems for learning andcollaboration between staff (Munthe & Midthassel, 2001) and between staff andparents (Roland, Bjrnsen, & Mandt, 2003), and actions at the individual,classroom, and school levels. Simultaneous integrated actions over time promoteeffective interventions (Hopkins, Harris, & Jackson, 1997).

Classroom leadership. An authoritative approach to teaching requires teachers to actas classroom leaders and at the same time develop positive relationships with indi-vidual pupils that enable them to correct pupil behaviour continuously. Thus, afocus on the teacher as a leader who can influence pupil behaviour is an alternativeor supplement to campaign days or weeks focusing on bullying, etc. Such campaignsrun the risk of becoming mere happenings where teachers stimulate positive atti-tudes among peers and formulate rules against bullying. However, daily life is hectic,and rules and standards are not sufficiently followed up.

Timing. The timing of any intervention should be considered carefully. The begin-ning of the school year is probably of great importance, as social structures developquickly during this period (Kounin, 1970; Roland, 1999). Starting a new class orrestarting after a long vacation are situations characterized more or less by a socialvacuum. Teachers participating in a program are therefore encouraged to use thisstart-up period to take a stand as classroom leader, as someone leading social groupprocesses in order to establish a healthy and productive social climate and establishbehavioural standards in the classroom. The social process is to be integrated intothe academic activity in the classroom (Eriksen, 2001; Roland, 1999).

Commitment. No adult in a school should witness a situation involving rule-breaking behaviour without taking action. This policy is expected to exercise apreventative function once pupils are aware of it (Roland & Vaaland, 2005). Whenteachers are confident about intervening they can consider situations involving prob-lem behaviour as opportunities for demonstrating authoritative leadership, combin-ing warmth with demands whenever they highlight prescribed standards by puttingthem into practice. All the programs key principles will be reinforced when everymember of staff handles challenging situations in an authoritative way.

Program Content

Teachers and school management staff participated in a series of seminars introduc-ing them to the principles of and practical approaches to the prevention and reduc-tion of behavioural problems, along with some illustrative examples. A two-dayseminar for the schools management, other key school personnel, and representa-tives of the school district administration was run in advance of the implementation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


period. The topics included the principles of the program, local responsibility, andmanagement. After that each school held a one-day workshop aimed at ensuring thatthe staff understood the schools own implementation process. These seminars wereheld in the spring before the summer holidays, as they were meant to prepare forprogram implementation and the commencement of the next school year. Four one-day seminars were conducted during the one-year implementation period for theentire staff, covering: (1) starting a new school year; (2) behavioural problemscauses, intervention, and backup systems; (3) classroom leadership and teaching;and (4) the school community. In addition, a two-day seminar was held for theleaders of teacher peer counselling groups. All teachers at each school attended peer-counselling groups regularly (at least once a month) during the program period.Additionally, a supervisor from the Centre for Behavioural Research was availablefor consultation at each school during the school year.

Although each headteacher had overall responsibility at the school level for adher-ing to the principles of the program, a project group shared day-to-day responsibilityfor implementing the program. The headteacher was a member of this group. Anetwork was established between the project groups at the four participating schoolswith the aim of discussing knowledge, experiences, and challenges related to programimplementation. The network held four meetings during the program year andcontinued to meet after the program had ended. The results of survey questionnaireswere used to create an understanding of the challenges presented to the schools byproblem behaviour and the involvement of staff and parents in the program.

The theoretical and empirical bases for the program have already been elaboratedon by Roland and his colleagues (e.g., Roland, 1999; Roland & Galloway, 2002;Roland & Vaaland, 2005).

Method

Subjects and Procedure

The pilot version of the program was conducted at three primary schools and onesecondary school, and included all staff and pupils. Measurements were made atfour points in time, T1T4, spread equally over a period of four years. Pupils in thefour schools completed questionnaires in May 2002 (T1), about three monthsbefore the intervention. New measurements were taken at the end of the interven-tion phase in May 2003 (T2). In order to examine the sustainability and longer-termeffects of the program, follow-up measurements were taken in May 2004 (T3) andMay 2005 (T4).

Teachers administered all assessments in their classrooms. To enhance the pupilsunderstanding of the questionnaire, teachers read each question aloud. Parentalconsent was obligatory, and only pupils whose parents gave consent were includedin the sample.

Due to the challenges presented by the measurements, the youngest pupils werenot included in the survey. At each point, the evaluation sample included pupils in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Grades 57 (aged 1113 years) at the primary schools and Grades 810 (aged 1416years) at the secondary school. As the evaluation included pupils in Grades 510 atall four points, the evaluation samples did not include all the same pupils. Pupilswere not included in the sample until they started in the fifth grade, even if they hadparticipated in the program from the start. Some of the secondary school pupils atT2, T3, and T4 had prior experience of the program while attending one of theprimary schools. However, the secondary school also recruited pupils from two otherprimary schools not included in the program. The situation at the secondary schoolwas consequently somewhat different from that of the primary schools. Even thoughthey perhaps did not attend one of the intervention schools during the program year,all secondary pupils were included in the sample since the primary target group ofthe intervention comprised the teachers, and the pupils are expected to benefit fromchanges in both school policy and their teachers classroom management.

The numbers of pupils completing the survey at T1T4 were 745, 769, 798, and792 respectively. The corresponding response rates were 81%, 86%, 89%, and 86%.Non-response resulted mainly from pupils being absent from class when thequestionnaires were administered and from parents failing to return the slips givingtheir permission.

The use of self-reporting in studies of problem behaviour has been discussed andquestioned elsewhere (e.g., Loeber, Green, Lahey, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1991;Stockdale, Hangaduambo, Duys, Larson, & Sarvela, 2002). The results of classteachers ratings of their pupils behaviour were included. These results have alreadybeen presented and discussed elsewhere (Ertesvg, 2003) and are presented here forcomparison with the pupil reports. These teacher ratings were not repeated in thefollow-up assessments as the questionnaires proved time-consuming for the teach-ers. The results presented were collected at T1 in May 2002 and at T2 in May 2003.All class teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire about their pupils behav-iour. The response rates for class teachers were 90% and 87%, and included theratings for pupils in 61 of 68 classes at T1 and 61 of 70 classes at T2.

Study Design

An extended version of a selection cohort design (Cook & Campbell, 1979), alsotermed a cohort-longitudinal design with adjacent or consecutive cohorts (Olweus& Alsaker, 1991), was chosen. This version is thoroughly described in Dan Olweuswork (e.g., Olweus, 2004, 2005; Olweus & Alsaker, 1991). The description anddiscussion of the design here is partly based on Olweus work. However, in thepresent study the design was extended even further to include pupils from Grades510 at each of the four times of data collection.

Using this design, we do not compare each cohort before the intervention with thesame cohort after the intervention. Instead, the fifth-grade cohorts before theintervention are compared with the fifth-grade cohorts one year (or more) later.Obviously these are not the same pupils. This enables a fifth-grade cohort alreadyexposed to the program to be compared with a fifth-grade cohort that has not.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


A key aspect of the design is that the cohorts compared are of the same age. Thesubjects in a cohort were attending a particular grade level at the same time and wereapproximately the same age. Thus, in general, data from cohorts participating in theprogram were compared to a similarly-aged cohort assessed in a previous year beforethe schools had joined the program.

The comparison of equivalent age groups is necessary for ruling out the effects ofage or maturation on the results (Olweus, 2005). As illustrated in the Appendix,changes took place in all the four variables studied as a function of age. When elimi-nating age in this manner, it is important to review the time of the year when theoutcome variables are measured so as to avoid possible seasonal variations in thevariables measured (Olweus, 2005).

Since a cohort design does not automatically rule out selection (Cook &Campbell, 1979), the design will gain additional strength if the data show that inter-vention and non-intervention groups do not systematically differ with regard to reli-ably measured third variables that might be considered possible mediators of anintervention effect. Therefore, the cohorts were analysed for three measurements ofaggressiveness: reactive, proactive affiliation, and proactive power. Obviously suchmeasurements cannot rule out selection threats associated with unmeasured vari-ables; it can only rule out some particular types of selection bias.

Each cohort was allocated a unique label, which was actually the grade they werein at T1, whether they had been included in the sample at that time or not. Table 1presents the grades the different cohorts were attending at the time point(s) whenthey were included in the sample. Consequently, Cohort 2 represents pupils inGrade 2 at T1, even though they were not included in the sample until T4 whenthey were in Grade 5. Cohorts 5a, 6a, and 7a represent pupils in Grade 8 at T4, T3,and T2 respectively. All cohorts included at T1 served as the baseline against whichsame-aged cohorts were compared at successive data collection points. Some ofthese cohorts acted as intervention groups in later data collection activities. This wasthe case, for example, with Cohort 5, which was the fifth-grade baseline group at T1and the sixth- and seventh-grade intervention group at T2 and T3, respectively.Cohorts 7 and 10 ended primary and secondary school in 2002 and therefore servedas baseline groups only. The other cohorts at T1 acted as intervention groups at oneor two later data collection points. However, as intervention groups they werecompared against the same-aged baseline cohort from T1. Six of the cohorts(Cohorts 2, 3, 4, 5a, 6a, and 7a) only served as intervention groups.

Measures

The questionnaire comprised scales assessing pupils behavioural problems. The keyinformation required related to disobedience, off-task behaviour, and bullying.

Disobedience. A scale consisting of seven items was employed to estimate disobedi-ence (Vaaland & Roland, submitted). These items were designed to assess pupil

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


behaviour that pupils know conflicts with teacher instructions or standards, andwere formulated as statements starting with I break the rules in class byfollowed by seven different situations, such as talking to other pupils withoutpermission, annoying teachers, disturbing other pupils, etc.

Off-task behaviour. Pupils were assessed for off-task behaviour using a slightlymodified version of a scale previously used by Bru (2006) and Thuen and Bru(2004), for example. The modified version contained five positively stated itemsdesigned to measure how well pupils concentrate on classroom activities and howsmoothly they changed from one activity to another when directed to by the teacher.

Bullying. Two scales covering bullying (Roland & Idse, 2001) were included inthe questionnaire; one comprised four items about being bullied, while the otherfour dealt with bullying others. Pupils were supposed to reveal how often they hadbeen bullied and how often they had bullied other pupils at school during therelevant school year.

Aggression. This was measured by three scales developed by Roland and Idse(2001) reporting reactive aggression (ReAgg), power-related proactive aggression(ProPow), and affiliation-related proactive aggression (ProAff). The ReAgg scalecomprised five items describing situations that might result in a person becomingangry. To estimate ProPow, a four-item scale was employed listing situations that

Table 1. Grades (G) of each cohort included in the sample

T1 T2 T3 T4

Primary schoolsCohort 2 G5Cohort 3 G5 G6Cohort 4 G5 G6 G7Cohort 5 G5b G6 G7Cohort 6 G6 G7Cohort 7 G7

Secondary schoolCohort 5a G8Cohort 6a G8 G9Cohort 7a G8 G9 G10Cohort 8 G8 G9 G10Cohort 9 G9 G10Cohort 10 G10

Cohorts are named after the grade (G) they attended at T1. Cohorts 5a, 6a, and 7a indicate the grade levels at intervention of pupils currently at secondary school; these are not equivalent to Cohorts 5, 6, and 7, although there is some overlap since the secondary school had recruited pupils from one of the primary schools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


might allow some people to experience power over someone else. Similarly, theProAff scale comprised four items describing aggression towards a third partyintended to achieve affiliation with someone.

The items concerning disobedience, off-task behaviour, and aggression wereformulated as statements. Alternatives were YES, yes, no, and NO,implying Agree completely, Agree, Disagree, and Totally disagree. Itemswere scored 0, 1, 2, or 3, respectively. Bullying-related items were formulated asquestions about the frequency of being bullied and of bullying others in the schoolyear under review. The possible responses were Never, Sometimes, Aboutevery week, and About every day, scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Each scalescore was the mean score of the items included.

Teacher rating. Class teachers were asked to respond to two questions and two state-ments about each of their pupils. The questions were: How often during the currentschool year has the pupil bullied other pupils at school? and How often during thecurrent school year has the pupil been a victim of bullying? The alternatives wereNever, Sometimes, About each week, and About every day, scored 0, 1, 2,and 3 respectively. The results for About each week and About each day werepooled and have been reported as indicative of severe bullying. The two statementsto be assessed were: During lessons the pupil interferes with teaching and Duringlessons the pupil hardly ever concentrates on schoolwork. Alternatives were Totallydisagree, Disagree, Agree, and Agree completely, scored 0, 1, 2, and 3.

Statistical Analyses

Factor analyses were conducted to examine whether or not the items included in thebehavioural scales revealed four distinct constructs. Reliability testing (Cronbachsalpha) and analyses of variance (ANOVA) were also conducted. Post-hoc procedures(LSD) were activated when significant differences were detected. The effect sizes (d;Cohen, 1988) were computed. One of the general guidelines for interpreting the dvalue states that a d of .20 is small, .50 is moderate, while .80 is large. However,Cohens interpretations need to be adapted to the theoretical considerations relatedto any differences or changes. Statistical analyses made use of SPSS (Norusis, 2004).

Reliability and Validity

The four scales measuring problem behaviour are well established and have beenutilized in previous studies (Bru, 2006; Roland & Idse, 2001; Vaaland & Roland,submitted). Although it had been used before, the scale measuring disobedience wasnot included in the same studies as the measurements of bullying and off-taskbehaviour. A principle components analysis incorporating varimax rotation of theitems included in the four scales was therefore carried out. An eigenvalue criterion of1.00 yielded a four-factor solution, where no item included in a factor had a loadingof less than .63 for that factor, or one above .32 for any of the other factors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


The consistency of the scales was evaluated by Cronbachs alpha (Cronbach,1951). The internal consistency varied from .74 to .89 for the different scales andtime points. Thus, the internal consistency proved to be fairly good to very good(Brown, 1970).

Results

The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 2, revealing significant differencesamong cohorts at different time points for most of the grades and most of the fourtypes of problem behaviour. Table 3 presents the results for disobedience, off-taskbehaviour, bullies, and victims of bullying for each grade at T1T4. Although not allthe results in Table 2 indicate a significant difference between cohorts at the differ-ent points in time, the results for all cohorts in the same grade and for all four typesof problem behaviour are presented in Table 3 in order to provide a full understand-ing of the results. The means and standard deviations of disobedience, off-taskbehaviour, bullies, and victims of bullying can be found in Table 3.

Overall the results showed a reduction in disobedience and off-task behaviour.However, the results were not significant for all grades. The results for bullies andvictims of bullying were somewhat weaker. Secondary school pupils (Grades 810)revealed no significant reduction in bullies or victims of bullying. Furthermore, thedecrease in problem behaviour differed between grades. In terms of effect size,Grade 7 pupils reported the largest total reduction between T1 and T4 due to a dvalue of .39 or greater for the four areas of problem behaviour. Grade 9 pupilsreported the smallest overall reduction, attributable to a d value of .35 or less. Thedifferences in the results for the four different areas of problem behaviour call for amore detailed presentation.

Disobedience

The main tendency in the results for disobedience in the different grades was areduction from T1 to T2 that was subsequently either sustained or strengthenedthrough T3 and T4. A marked reduction was noted between T1 and T4 in most,

Table 2. Results of ANOVA for Grades 510 for the four types of problem behaviour

Disobedience Off-task behaviour Bullies Victims

df F p df F p df F p df F p

Grade 5 3 1.422 .235 3 1.811 .144 3 4.535 .004 3 1.656 .175Grade 6 3 4.786 .003 3 13.978 .000 3 8.660 .000 3 1.994 .114Grade 7 3 5.810 .001 3 5.591 .001 3 7.687 .000 3 4.867 .002Grade 8 3 5.021 .002 3 8.750 .000 3 3.655 .013 3 10.174 .000Grade 9 3 2.601 .052 3 3.540 .015 3 0.070 .976 3 3.715 .012Grade 10 3 8.161 .000 3 6.089 .000 3 0.662 .575 3 1.671 .172

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Table 3. Number of subjects, mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes (Cohens d) for the four types of problem behaviour at four time points (T) for Grades 510

DisobedienceOff-task

behaviour Bullies Victims

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Grade 5T1 Cohort 5 (n = 118) 0.75 0.55 0.58 0.48 0.29 0.32 0.54 0.49T2 Cohort 4 (n = 126) 0.68 0.57 0.59 0.49 0.31 0.43 0.53 0.53T3 Cohort 3 (n = 151) 0.64 0.54 0.48 0.45 0.21* 0.33 0.43 0.48T4 Cohort 2 (n = 143) 0.61* 0.56 0.52 0.47 0.17* 0.38 0.44 0.54d T1T2 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.02d T1T4 0.25 0.13 0.40 0.19

Grade 6T1 Cohort 6 (n = 152) 0.83 0.58 0.85 0.52 0.36 0.38 0.46 0.46T2 Cohort 5 (n = 129) 0.66* 0.57 0.55** 0.43 0.28 0.43 0.50 0.57T3 Cohort 4 (n = 130) 0.60** 0.53 0.55** 0.53 0.17** 0.25 0.38 0.47T4 Cohort 3 (n = 140) 0.66* 0.57 0.56** 0.45 0.21** 0.30 0.39 0.46d T1T2 0.30 0.60 0.20 0.08d T1T4 0.30 0.60 0.44 0.15

Grade 7T1 Cohort 7 (n = 147) 0.97 0.62 0.81 0.51 0.31 0.32 0.44 0.51T2 Cohort 6 (n = 160) 0.82* 0.59 0.72 0.48 0.32 0.39 0.39 0.52T3 Cohort 5 (n = 134) 0.71** 0.50 0.70 0.53 0.30 0.40 0.44 0.52T4 Cohort 4 (n = 140) 0.73** 0.62 0.57** 0.47 0.15** 0.28 0.24* 0.46d T1T2 0.25 0.18 0.03 0.10d T1T4 0.39 0.49 0.39 0.41

Grade 8T1 Cohort 8 (n = 123) 0.99 0.66 0.86 0.53 0.32 0.49 0.30 0.57T2 Cohort 7a (n = 128) 0.83* 0.57 0.77 0.52 0.25 0.33 0.21 0.34T3 Cohort 6a (n = 112) 0.84 0.68 0.67* 0.52 0.41 0.60 0.57* 0.74T4 Cohort 5a (n = 123) 0.67** 0.64 0.54** 0.46 0.25 0.49 0.32 0.40d T1T2 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.20d T1T4 0.50 0.65 0.17 0.04

Grade 9T1 Cohort 9 (n = 95) 1.07 0.78 0.97 0.53 0.34 0.55 0.26 0.39T2 Cohort 8 (n = 128) 1.17 0.69 0.98 0.55 0.32 0.48 0.26 0.46T3 Cohort 7a (n = 112) 0.97 0.61 0.86 0.60 0.35 0.59 0.36 0.55T4 Cohort 6a (n = 122) 0.95 0.72 0.79* 0.49 0.33 0.49 0.44* 0.55d T1T2 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.00d T1T4 0.16 0.35 0.02 0.29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


but not all, grades. The mean scores and ANOVA results indicated that the largestreduction was for Grade 10 pupils (F[1,232] = 22.39, p = .000). In classificationterms (Cohen, 1988), the d value of .62 indicates a moderate effect. Grade 9 pupilspresented the smallest effect (F[1,252] = 1.30, p = .255) with a d value of .16, whichis lower than the .20 Cohen considers to indicate a small effect. The Grade 9 pupilsresults were the only results that did not present an effect, according to Cohensclassification. It should be noted that the Grade 9 pupils results revealed marginal,non-significant differences between time points (Table 2). Similarly, Grade 5 pupilsdid not report significant differences between time points. Nevertheless, the effectsize between T1 and T4 was .25.

Off-Task Behaviour

The reduction in off-task behaviour was the greatest reduction in the results overall.The general trend was a reduction in the mean score from T1 to T2 and a sustainedor strengthened effect at T3 and T4, although not significant for all grades at T2.The effect size for four of the grades was around or over the .50 Cohen considered tobe a moderate effect. Among pupils at different grade levels, those in Grade 8revealed the largest effect between T1 and T4 for off-task behaviour (F[1,242] =24.84, p = .000, d = .65).

Bullies

All the primary school grades (57) revealed a significant reduction from T1 to T4,and an effect size of .39.44. However, none of the secondary school grades (810)revealed a significant reduction although the results presented in Table 2 revealed

Table 3. (Continued)

DisobedienceOff-task


M SD M SD M SD M SD

Grade 10T1 Cohort 10 (n = 112) 1.38 0.78 1.15 0.59 0.35 0.49 0.35 0.60T2 Cohort 9 (n = 99) 1.17 0.81 0.95* 0.56 0.41 0.55 0.27 0.34T3 Cohort 8 (n = 149) 1.03** 0.69 0.94* 0.54 0.38 0.60 0.24 0.40T4 Cohort 7a (n = 124) 0.94** 0.64 0.84** 0.57 0.31 0.56 0.24 0.34d T1T2 0.26 0.35 0.12 0.17d T1T4 0.62 0.52 0.08 0.23

For all four measures a reduction in score indicates an improvement. The effect size for T1T2 is included to give reference for the teacher reports in Table 6. *p < .05; **p < .001. The identification of a significant difference implies a significant difference from the corresponding grade at T1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


significant differences between grade 8 cohorts at different time points. Grade 6pupils reported the largest reduction [F(1, 290) = 12.84, p =.000, d= 0.44)].

Victims of bullying

Overall, the results for victims of bullying revealed the smallest effect of the fourtypes of problem behaviour. The results of the ANOVA presented in Table 2 indi-cate significant differences between time points for Grades 7, 8, and 9. However,only Grade 7 pupils reported a significant reduction from T1 to T4 (F[1,285] =11.57, p = .001, d = .41). Although Grade 10 pupils presented an effect size of .23,the results did not indicate a significant effect at the 5% level (F[1,234] = 2.76, p =.098). The effect indicated by the d value resulted from a marked reduction in thestandard deviation from .60 to .34. Grade 9 pupils at T4 reported an increasein victims of bullying (F[1,212] = 7.36, p = .007, d = .29) compared to the cohort inthe corresponding grade at T1. Grade 8 pupils at T3 (Cohort 6a) that is, pupils inthe same class groups as those in Grade 9 at T4 also reported results that differedfrom the other cohorts at the same age. This might indicate a cohort with a higherlevel of bullying than other cohorts. The mean score for this cohort at Grade 8 (T3)and Grade 9 (T4) indicated a reduction in bullying from .57 (SD = .74) to .44 (SD= .52), while a d value of .21 indicated a small effect. The reduction contains bothmaturation and possible implementation effects.

Aggression

The cohorts were examined for significant differences between the interventiongroups and the non-intervention groups, at the same grade levels, with regard to thethree types of aggression. Table 4 presents the ANOVA results. There were signifi-cant differences in reactive aggression (ReAgg) between cohorts at Grades 6, 7, and8, and significant differences in power-related proactive aggression (ProPow)between cohorts at Grade 8. Analysis revealed no significant differences in affilia-tion-related proactive aggression (ProAff) at any grade. Post-hoc analysis wasconducted in order to reveal any significant differences between grades that coulduncover significant differences between the non-intervention cohorts and the inter-vention cohorts.

The results of post-hoc analysis of significant ANOVA results (see Table 4) arepresented in Table 5. At Grade 6 the non-treatment group (Cohort 6) was signifi-cantly different from all the treatment groups (Cohorts 3, 4, and 5), showing lowerlevels of ReAgg than the intervention groups. The non-intervention group at Grade7 (Cohort 7) reported a significantly lower level of ReAgg than the correspondingcohort at T3 (Cohort 5) and T4 (Cohort 4). Similarly, for Grade 8 pupils the treat-ment group at T4 (Cohort 5a) reported a significantly higher level of ReAgg than thenon-intervention group (Cohort 8). As far as ProPow is concerned, the Grade 8intervention group at T4 (Cohort 5a) presented a significantly higher level of aggres-sion than the non-intervention group (Cohort 8).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Thus, the level of aggression did not turn out to be higher for non-treatmentgroups than for the corresponding treatment groups. On the contrary, treatmentgroups reported a higher level of aggression, although they scored lower on thebehavioural measurements than the non-treatment groups.

Table 4. ANOVA results for Grades 510 for three types of aggression; F values, degrees of freedom, and significant results are shown

Reactive aggressionProactive aggression

powerProactive aggression

affiliation

df F p df F p df F p

Grade 5 3 2.218 .085 3 1.483 .218 3 0.059 .981Grade 6 3 8.746 .000 3 2.159 .092 3 2.449 .063Grade 7 3 3.625 .013 3 0.865 .459 3 0.556 .644Grade 8 3 5.610 .001 3 3.668 .012 3 2.230 .084Grade 9 3 1.238 .295 3 1.603 .188 3 0.654 .586Grade 10 3 1.427 .234 3 2.288 .078 3 1.979 .116

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for reactive aggression and power-related proactive aggression for grades that reported significant differences

Reactive aggression (ReAgg)

Proactive aggression power (ProAgg)

M SD M SD

Grade 6T1 Cohort 6 (n = 152) 1.83 0.60T2 Cohort 5 (n = 129) 1.99* 0.62T3 Cohort 4 (n = 130) 2.15** 0.61T4 Cohort 3 (n = 139) 2.14** 0.62

Grade 7T1 Cohort 7 (n = 147) 1.87 0.60T2 Cohort 6 (n = 160) 1.95 0.67T3 Cohort 5 (n = 134) 2.02* 0.57T4 Cohort 4 (n = 140) 2.10* 0.67

Grade 8T1 Cohort 8 (n = 123) 1.81 0.66 2.42 0.73T2 Cohort 7a (n = 127) 1.95 0.58 2.56 0.55T3 Cohort 6a (n = 112) 1.87 0.71 2.45 0.64T4 Cohort 5a (n = 123) 2.12** 0.55 2.66* 0.55

*p < .05; **p < .001. The identification of a significant difference implies a significant difference from the corresponding grade at T1. A low score indicates a low level of aggression.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Teacher Ratings

The results of the teachers ratings of bullying, disruption, and off-task behaviour arepresented in Table 6, and indicate a reduction both in severe cases of victims ofbullying and in the number of bullies. Likewise, there is a reduction in disruptiveand off-task behaviour. Although the questions and statements answered by theteachers are not comparable to the pupil measurements, it is nevertheless interestingto note that the teachers, just like the pupils, reported a reduction in all of the fourareas of problem behaviour. It should be noted that, since there was a one-year gapbetween the two data collection points, teachers did not assess exactly the samepupils. Pupils in Grades 7 and 10 at the time of the first data collection were notincluded in the second one, while pupils in Grades 1 and 8 at the time of the second

Table 6. Mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes (Cohens d) of teacher ratings of the four types of problem behaviour at two time points

DisturbanceOff-task


M SD M SD M SD M SD

Grade 5T1 Cohort 5 (n = 149) 0.68 0.91 0.77 0.94 0.38 0.63 0.35 0.57T2 Cohort 4 (n = 146) 0.51 0.89 0.59 0.85 0.35 0.55 0.40 0.51d T1T2 0.19 0.20 0.05 0.09



Grade 8T1 Cohort 8 (n = 141) 0.61 0.88 1.12 1.10 0.27 0.56 0.30 0.52T2 Cohort 7a (n = 132) 0.39 0.73 0.56 0.84 0.19 0.45 0.17 0.41d T1T2 0.27 0.58 0.16 0.28


Grade 10T1 Cohort 10 (n = 107) 0.74 0.96 1.26 1.08 0.18 0.43 0.19 0.42T2 Cohort 9 n = 117) 0.42 0.75 0.75 1.05 0.08 0.27 0.13 0.36d T1T2 0.37 0.48 0.29 0.15

For all four measures, a reduction in score indicates an improvement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


data collection had not been included in the first sample. This calls for caution to beexercised in interpreting the results. The teacher ratings included Grades 510.

Discussion

One of the main purposes of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Respectprogram with regard to the prevention and reduction of problem behaviour. Acohort longitudinal design was employed to examine any possible interventioneffects. According to Cook and Campbell (1979), selection bias and history are keyissues that might affect interpretation: these design issues will be discussed first.

Olweus (2004) argues that a selection cohort design provides partial protectionagainst selection bias because several of the cohorts serve both as baseline groups atone time point and as intervention groups at one or more different time points. Theconsiderable advantage of this aspect of the design, Olweus (2004, 2005) argues, isthat a possible bias in the composition of the cohorts would operate in differentdirections in the two sets of comparisons, thus rendering it difficult to achieveintervention effects. There was no evidence of any such selection bias in the resultsof the Respect program.

Furthermore, the sample consists of pupils in successive cohorts where the modalage of the pupils was separated by only one year. In addition, the majority of thepupils, especially in the primary schools, had been attending the same school forseveral years. In Norway classes contain the same pupils from year to year both inprimary and secondary school. Classes also normally have the same class teacher forseveral yearsfor example, from Grades 14 or from Grades 57. Grade retentionwhen pupils are kept back to repeat a year of schoolingis not used, and rates ofsuspension and dropout are almost zero in primary and secondary schools. Anychanges in class composition are normally restricted to pupils moving. There istherefore reason to assume that changes due to alterations in the composition of aclass were minimal. No systematic changes took place in the local school system towhich the participating schools belonged. Therefore, there were reasonable groundsfor assuming that members of the different cohorts had not been exposed to anyunusual conditions that might affect their behaviour.

Moreover, as the non-intervention groups did not demonstrate higher levels ofany of the three types of aggression than the intervention groups at the same grade,no evidence could be found of selection bias due to systematic differences in thelevels of any of the three types of aggression examined (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

With regard to history, the measurement points were one year apart. Although nosystematic examination of the effects of repeated measures was conducted, it is notconsidered likely that measurement points separated by an entire year would resultin systematic changes in the pupils reports. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the effectof history would result in a reduction in problem behaviour rather than in anincrease (Olweus, 2005). That said, it is obvious that a non-equivalent, non-intervention control group could strengthen the designsomething not possible dueto a national government initiative for anti-bullying work in schools nationwide.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


There were a number of reasons for choosing a selection cohort design in prefer-ence to a straightforward longitudinal design in the present study, although conduct-ing a straightforward prepost quasi-experimental design with follow-up might beconsidered a possibility. One of the key research questions concerns the possibleexistence of time-related change, and in particular any effects associated with theintervention program. Time-lagged contrasts (Olweus & Alsaker, 1991) betweenage-equivalent groups were used. In this analysis, the measurement point wasallowed to vary while the grade was held constant. The main reason for using time-lagged contrasts between cohorts of the same age rather than a longitudinal compar-ison to evaluate the effects of the intervention program was that changes could beexpected in all four behavioural measurements in the study as a function of age (seeAppendix). In such a situation, longitudinal comparisons between different timepoints would reflect both age-related (maturation) changes and any potential effectsof the intervention program.

The size of the sample and the small number of classes included in the pilotimplementation limited the opportunities for analysis. The unit of analysis was thecohort. Since classroom leadership was one of the main tools for the prevention andreduction of problem behaviour, it can be argued that the class was a natural level ofanalysis. On the other hand, one can argue that the school is the natural level ofanalysis for a whole school intervention (Sprague et al., 2001). However, the leveland quality of implementation may vary within a school. In a larger sample it wouldhave been possible to study differences in implementation between classrooms aswell as differences in pupil, classroom, and school effects.

The evidence resulting from this evaluative study indicates that a reduction wasachieved in disobedience and off-task behaviour between T1 and T2, while thisdecrease was sustained or strengthened through T3 and T4 across all cohorts formost of the grades. The reduction indicated small to moderate effect sizes fordisobedience and off-task behaviour according to d value. Additionally, a reductionin bullies and victims of bullying was found. However, there was no reduction inbullying at the secondary school grade levels.

The main findings indicating that the intervention was associated with a reductionin the four types of problem behaviour were consistent with previous research onwhole-school approaches to each of these problem areas (Luiselli, Putnam, &Handler, 2005; Roland et al., submitted), as well as with previous research into theinterventions on which the Respect program builds (O Moore & Minton, 2002;Roland, 1999; Roland et al., 2003). However, none of those interventions werefollowed for three years.

The teachers reports on pupil behaviour at T1 to T2 support the findings takenfrom pupils self-reportsthey reveal overall decreases in all four types of problembehaviour. However, the teachers responded to single questions or statements so anycomparisons to pupils reports based on scales containing several questions or state-ments should be made with caution.

An interesting feature of the pupils results was that the observed outcomeimproved in the period following the initial year. One possible reason might be the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


general approach taken by the program. Although aimed at reducing problems withpupil disobedience, off-task orientation, and bullying, the program was not primarilydirected at the pupils. Its aim was to change pupil behaviour by strengthening adultskills and management, mainly through system-level changes aiming for sustainablechange. Changes at the school level are demanding (Midthassel & Ertesvg, submit-ted). Consequently, some time may pass before changes manifest in pupil behaviour.On the other hand, by altering teacher behaviour changes might not be limited solelyto the pupils attending school during the program year, but could benefit all futurepupils as well, as long as the changes are sustained. The schools maintained theintervention in the second and third years on their own. At that time, there wasreason to believe that they had more or less fully adopted the principles of theprogram. Hence, an evaluation of the program only at the end of the first programyear might falsely conclude that there were no or very few program effects when, infact, there were effects. However, it is too early to identify effects at the pupil level.One implication of the results might be that evaluating whole school approachesfocusing on the roles and responsibilities of the adults in the schools requires morethan just one year to identify program effects fully.

Determining whether longer-term results have been achieved should be one of thecritical factors in program evaluation. Previous research has indicated that interven-tion results have, at best, been growing weaker over time (Ager & Cole, 1991;Roland & Munthe, 1997). The results associated with the Respect program werepromising at least as promising as the results of programs targeting one type ofproblem behaviour (Nordahl, Gravrok, Knudsmoen, Larsen, & Rrnes, 2006;Roland et al., submitted; Vitario, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 1999).

Based on previous research (Midthassel, 2006; Midthassel & Ertesvg, submitted)and studies of the implementation of this program (Ertesvg, 2005; Ertesvg et al.,submitted), there is reason to believe that the emphasis placed on creating acommon understanding of and commitment to the principles among staff was onefactor influencing the success of the intervention. Therefore, perhaps someprograms build on a manual without sufficiently emphasising the importance ofunderstanding their theoretical and empirical foundations (e.g., the four key princi-ples of the Respect program). Programs are consequently in danger of becomingmerely a list of things to do. A program does not become a living tool for schools todevelop; neither will schools work any smarter (Hargreaves, 2001). In fact, they willtake on a heavier work load, and staff members will be in danger of burning them-selves out (Ertesvg, 1994).

The Respect program might benefit pupils academic performance. Reducingpupil disobedience and/or off-task behaviour should increase the amount of timeteachers and pupils are able to spend on classroom instruction and learning and, inturn, facilitate skills acquisition (Lentz, 1988; Lewis, 2001; Luiselli et al., 2005;Rydell & Henricsson, 2004; Thuen & Bru, 2004). Time redirected from managingmisbehaviour among pupils in a classroom setting should strengthen the learningenvironment and eventually benefit pupil outcome. In the program, classroomleadership was one of the key factors in reducing disobedience and off-task behaviour

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


at the classroom level. According to Roland and Galloway (2004), classroom leader-ship is also key to reducing bullying. Additionally, considerable evidence supports thebeneficial effects of a close teacherpupil relationship on childrens academicoutcomes (Hughes, Cavell, & Jackson, 1999; Pianta, 1999). The effect of such a rela-tionship might prove most beneficial for pupils who face the risks associated withacademic problems.

A primary value of this study lies in demonstrating that what happens in schoolsand classrooms can be improved by applying a systematic, consistent, broad,school-wide program addressing key types of problem behaviour. This contrastswith the more common interventions addressing improvements in the behaviour oftargeted pupils. Such an outcome does not imply that individual pupils will notrequire specific interventions on occasions (Walker & Shinn, 2002). Rather, theimplementation of whole school approaches to preventing and reducing problembehaviour may reduce the need for individual interventions and broaden theinvolvement of school personnel in prevention rather than in intervention measures(Marr et al., 2002).

The results of this research will inform discussion about broad school-wideprograms in association with authoritative adult behaviour that is consistent acrossclassrooms and over time in response to undesirable behaviour. The primary impor-tance of the study is its demonstration of improved behaviour as a result of improvedschool management, teacher collaboration, and teachers management in andbetween classrooms. This research has demonstrated the effectiveness of a programemphasizing school-wide efforts to maintain similar attitudes, behavioural standards,collaboration, and shared understanding and commitment among staff in theprevention and reduction of problem behaviour. Successful preventative and cura-tive programs in schools should be continuous and address a wide number of behav-iour types. Accordingly, a broad whole school approach to preventing and reducingproblem behaviour does seem reasonable.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Professor Erling Roland for allowing us to draw upon his researchand development work in order to write this article. He has also been involved in thedevelopment and delivery of the Respect program. Several colleagues at the Centrefor Behavioural Research have participated in different ways in developing and deliv-ering the program. We are thankful for their contributions to the basics of this arti-cle. We are also most grateful to the schools in which we have been working with theRespect program, and to the Local Educational Board of Oslo. The Respectprogram is partly funded by the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training,and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

Note

1. The program was run under the name Connect in the ConnectOSLO project.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


References

Adams, R. E., Bukowski, W. M., & Bagwell, C. (2005). Stability of aggression during early adoles-cence as moderated by reciprocated friendship status and friends aggression. InternationalJournal of Behavioural Development, 29, 139145.

Ager, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1991). A review of cognitive-behavioural interventions for children andadolescents with behavioural disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 276287.

Bear, G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: Prevention, correction and long termsocial development. Educational and Child Psychology, 15, 1539.

Brophy, J. E. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: Guildford.Brown, F. G. (1970). Principles of educational and psychological testing. Chicago, IL: The Dryden

Press Inc.Bru, E. (2006). Factors associated with disruptive behaviour in the classroom. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 50, 2343.Bru, E., Murberg, T. A., & Stephens, P. (2001). Social support, negative life events and student

misbehaviour among young Norwegian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 715727.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Coie, J. D., & Jacobs, M. R. (1993). The role of social context in the prevention of conduct

disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 263275.Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNally.Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.de la Barra, F., Toledo, V., & Rodriguez, J. (2005). Prediction of behavioural problems in Chilean

schoolchildren. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 35, 227243.Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D.

Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201218).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eriksen, N. (2001). Forebygging av atferdsproblemer i frste klasse ved hjelp av et strukturert opplrings-og veiledningsprogram for lrere [Prevention of problem behaviour in grade one throughstructured in-service training for teachers]. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.

Ertesvg, S. K. (1994). vere lrar: Stress og utbrenning hj lrarar i ungdomsskulen [Stress and burn-out among secondary school teachers]. Masters thesis, University of Trondheim, Norway.

Ertesvg, S. K. (2003). ConnectOSLO: Rapport fra gjennomfring og evaluering av pilotprosjektetskoleret 20022003 [ConnectOSLOa pilot evaluation]. Stavanger, Norway: Centre forBehavioural Research, University of Stavanger.

Ertesvg, S.K. (2005). Implementering av ConnectOslo-pilot [Implementing ConnectOSLO].Stavanger, Norway: Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger.

Ertesvg, S. K., Roland, P., Vaaland, G. S., Strksen, S., Veland, J., & Flack, T. (submitted).Challenging continuationSchools implemetation of the Respect programme.

Fandrem, H., & Roland, E. (2000). Strategier for lokalt utviklingsarbeid i Samtak [Strategies forlocal development in the SAMTAK project]. Skolepsykologi, 35(5), 1932.

Farmer, T. W., Goforth, J. B., Clemmer, J. T., & Thompson, J. H. (2004). School disciplineproblems in rural African American early adolescents: Characteristics of students with major,minor, and no offences. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 317336.

Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: Theresearcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5, 513.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitovich, C. E., & Baumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing mental disorders in school-age children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. The Prevention Research Centre forthe Promotion of Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.

Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P. Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., et al.(1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school:A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 16051611.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. BritishEducational Research Journal, 27, 487503.

Hopkins, D., Harris, A., & Jackson, D. (1997). Understanding the schools capacity for develop-ment: Growth states and strategies. School Leadership and Management, 17, 401411.

Hughes, J. N. (2002). Authoritative teaching: Tipping the balance in favour of school versus peereffects. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 485492.

Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Jackson, T. (1999). Influence of teacherstudent relationships onaggressive childrens development: A prospective study. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,28, 173184.

Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Manz, P. H., Costigan, T. E., & Nabors, L. A. (2001). School-basedaggression prevention programs for young children: Current status and implications forviolence prevention. School Psychology Review, 30, 344362.

Lentz, F. E. J. (1988). On-task behavior, academic performance, and classroom disruptions:Untangling the target selection problem in classroom interventions. School Psychology Review,17, 243257.

Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students view. Teachingand Teaching Education, 17, 307319.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and serviceneeds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1991). Differences andsimilarities between children, mothers, and teachers as informants on disruptive behavior.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 7595.

Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Handler, M. W. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour supportand academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183198.

Manger, T., Eikeland, O. J., & Asbjrnsen, A. (2002). Effects of social-cognitive training onstudents empathy. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 60, 8288.

Marr, M. B., Audett, B., White, R., Ellis, E., & Algozzine, B. (2002). School-wide discipline andclassroom ecology. Special Services in the Schools, 18, 5573.

Midthassel, U. V. (2006). Creating a shared understanding of classroom management. EducationalManagement Administration and Leadership, 34, 365383.

Midthassel, U. V., & Ertesvg, S. K. (submitted). Schools implementing Zero: The process ofimplementing an anti-bullying programme in six Norwegian compulsory schools.

Mitchem, K., Young, R. K., West, R. P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM: A classwide peer-assisted self-management program for general education classrooms. Education and Treatmentof Children, 24, 111140.

Munthe, E., & Midthassel, U. V. (2001). Peer learning groups for teachers. A Norwegian innova-tion. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 11, 303316.

Nordahl, T., Gravrok, ., Knudsmoen, H., Larsen, T. M. B., & Rrnes, K. (2006). Forebyggendeinnsatser i skolen [Prevention in school]. Oslo, Norway: Sosial-og helsedirektoratet og Utdan-ningsdirektoratet.

Norusis, M. (2004). Guide to data analysis. Chicago: Prentice Hall, Inc.O Moore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2002). Tackling violence in schools: A broad approach. Retrieved

April 15, 2006, from http://www.gold.ac.uk/connect/evaluationnorway.htmlOlweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological

Bulletin, 84, 852875.Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation

issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.),Bullying in school (pp. 1336). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying PreventionProgram. Psychology, Crime and Law, 4, 389402.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F. D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study withhierarchical data. In D. Magnusson, L. Bergman, G. Ruidinger, & B. Trestad (Eds.),Problems and methods in longitudinal research (pp. 107132). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ortega, R., del-Rey, R., & Mora-Merchan, J. A. (2004). SAVE model: An anti-bullying interven-tion in Spain. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in school (pp. 167185).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later adjustment: Are low-accepted childrenat risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357389.

Pepler, D., & Rubin, K. (Eds.). (1991). The development and treatment of childhood aggression.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Reid, J. B. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interven-tions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 243262.

Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (Eds.). (2002). Antisocial behavior in children andadolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Roland, E. (1999). School influences on bullying. Stavanger, Norway: Rebell Forlag.Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15

years. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135143.Roland, E., Bjrnsen, G., & Mandt, G. (2003). Taking back adult control. In P. K. Smith (Ed.),

Violence in schools: The response in Europe (pp. 200216). London: Routledge.Roland, E., Bru, E., Midthassel, U. V., & Vaaland, G. S. (submitted). Anti-bullying efforts in

Norway 20012004: Effects of the National Manifesto Against Bullying and the Zeroprogram.

Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2002). Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Research, 44,299312.

Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2004). Can we reduce bullying by improving classroom manage-ment? ACPP Occasional Papers: Bullying in Schools, 23, 3540.

Roland, E., & Idse, T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 446462.Roland, E., & Munthe, E. (1997). The 1996 Norwegian program for preventing and managing

bullying in schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 233247.Roland, E., & Vaaland, G. S. (2005). Teachers guide to the Zero Anti-Bullying Program. Stavanger,

Norway: Centre for Behavioural Research.Rydell, A. M., & Henricsson, L. (2004). Elementary school teachers strategies to handle external-

ising classroom behaviour: A study of relations between perceived control, teacher orientationand strategy preferences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 93102.

Sprague, J. R., Walker, H. M., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2001).Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student inter-vention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 24,495511.

Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Ruralelementary students, parents, and teachers perceptions of bullying. American Journal ofHealth Behavior, 26, 266277.

Thuen, E., & Bru, E. (2004). Coping styles and emotional and behavioural problems amongNorwegian grade 9 students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 493510.

Toby, J. (1993). Everyday school violence: How disorder fuels it. American Educator, 17(4),49.

Vaaland, G. S., & Roland, E. (submitted). Aggression, performance and disobedience.Vitario, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Prevention of school dropout through the

reduction of disruptive behaviours and school failure in elementary school. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 37, 205226.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5


Walker, H. M., Golly, A., McLane, J. Z., & Kimmich, M. (2005). The Oregon First Step toSuccess replication initiative: Statewise results of an evaluation of the programs impact.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 163172.

Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieveintegrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools.In M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behaviorproblems: Prevention and remedial approaches (pp. 126). Silver Spring, MD: National Associ-ation of School Psychologists.

Appendix

The scales used in the study have formed part of representative nation-wide surveysconducted in Norwegian schools in 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004; the results of the2001 survey are presented in Table A1. The survey was conducted at 50 randomlyselected Norwegian schools. The nationwide study comprised pupils in Grades 510.

The results showed an increase in disobedience, off-task behaviour, and thenumber of bullies year on year. However, the increase was not significant betweenone grade and the next for bullies, other than for Grades 6 to 7. In addition, aninsignificant decrease occurred between Grades 9 and 10. Likewise, pupils reporteda decrease in victims of bullying from one grade to the next in most grades. This wassignificant only from Grades 7 to 8 and Grades 8 to 9.

Table A1. Mean scores and standard deviations for Grade 510 pupils in a representative national sample; the significant ANOVA results have been identified

Grade 5(n = 1383)

Grade 6(n = 1335)

Grade 7(n = 1227)

Grade 8(n = 1225)

Grade 9(n = 1193)

Grade 10(n = 993)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Disobedience 0.69 0.61 0.90** 0.63 1.11** 0.70 1.26** 0.69 1.37** 0.69 1.41 0.70Off-task behaviour

0.60 0.48 0.75** 0.48 0.88** 0.52 0.93* 0.53 1.02** 0.55 1.11** 0.60

Bullies 0.29 0.36 0.32 0.37 0.36* 0.39 0.37 0.45 0.40 0.45 0.37 0.49Victims 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.46 0.38 0.48 0.34* 0.49 0.29* 0.44 0.28 0.49

**p < .001; *p < .05. Each significant result is significantly different from the grade below. A low score indicates a low level of problem behaviour.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

NIVE

RSIT

AT D

E BA

RCEL

ONA]

at 13

:53 03

Apr

il 201

5

01443410701309258

Documents

common problems

problems havealready

francis ltdcedp

articletaylor francis

ertesvg grete srensen

respect programsigrun

taylor francisdoi

tothe accuracy