testing psychometric properties of the perpetration of bullying and victimization scales with olweus bullying questionnaire in middle schools

background and objective: bullying behavior is one of the growing problems in many schools. availability and access to a valid and reliable instrument for measuring this behavior is necessary for intervention and to reduce side effects. therefore, this study has been carried out with middle school students with the aim of validating the bullying perpetration and victimization scales of olweus bullying questionnaire. materials and methods: the study was conducted on 830 public middle school students in mazandaran province. the content validity was calculated from cvr. to assess structure, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used; and correlations between factors for each of the scales were obtained. to assess reliability, test – retest procedure was used with intra class correlation coefficient (iccs). results: in the assessment stage of content validity, each of the scales removed one question and added one question. analysis four-factor structure of victimization scale explained by efa with 64% of variance, as well as four-factor structure of the perpetration of bullying scale by eliminating item 13, explained efa 72% of variance. confirmatory factor analysis (cfa) confirmed four-factor structure in both victimization and perpetration of bullying scales. values of reliability test - retest showed a good level of both of these scales. conclusion: perpetration of bullying and victimization scales of olweus bullying questionnaire has acceptable validation properties in middle school students. references 1- saidi a. bullying in schools. magazine pyvand. 2010;369(20):60-5. 2- olweus d. bully/victim problems in school: facts and intervention. european journal of psychology of education. 1997;12(4):495-510. 3- vanderbilt d, augustyn m. the effects of bullying.paediatr child health. 2010;20(7):315-20. 4- gini g, pozzoli t. association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: a meta-analysis. pediatrics. 2009;123(3):1059-65. 5- stavrinides p, georgiou s, nikiforou m, kiteri e. longitudinal investigation of the relationship between bullying and psychosocial adjustment. eur j dev psychol. 2011;8(6):730-43. 6- williams k, chambers m, logan s, robinson d. association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. bmj: british medical journal. 1996;313(7048):17-9. 7- radliff km, wheaton je, robinson k, morris j. illuminating the relationship between bullying and substance use among middle and high school youth. addictive behaviors. 2012;37(4):569-72. 8- topper l, conrod pj. a review of the association between alcohol misuse and bullying victimization in adolescence. mind brain. 2011;000(000):1-7. 9- hong js, espelage dl. a review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: an ecological system analysis. aggress violent behav. 2012;17(4):311-22. 10- nansel tr, overpeck m, pilla rs, ruan wj, simons-morton b, scheidt p. bullying behaviors among us youth. jama: the journal of the american medical association. 2001;285(16):2094-100. 11- craig w, harel-fisch y, fogel-grinvald h, dostaler s, hetland j, simons-morton b, et al. a cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries.int j public health. 2009: 54(2): 216-24. 12- wang j, iannotti rj, nansel tr. school bullying among adolescents in the united states: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. j adolesc health. 2009;45(4):368-75. 13- mcguinness tm. dispelling the myth of bullying. j psychosocnursment health serv. 2007;45(10):19-22. 14- yen cf. school bullying and mental health in children and adolescents.taiwanese journal of psychiatry. 2010;24(1):3-13. 15- kim ys, koh yj, leventhal bl. prevalence of school bullying in korean middle school students. arch pediatradolesc med. 2004;158(8):737. 16- solberg me, olweus d. prevalence estimation of school bullying with the olweus bully/victim questionnaire. aggressive behavior. 2003;29(3):239-68. 17- baldry ac. bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence.child abuse & neglect. 2003;27(7):713-32. 18- hansen tb, steenberg lm, palic s, elklit a. a review of psychological factors related to bullying victimization in schools. aggress violent behav. 2012;17(4):383-7. 19- elgar fj, craig w, boyce w, morgan a, vella-zarb r. income inequality and school bullying: multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries. j adolesc health. 2009;45(4):351-9. 20- hoertel n, le strat y, lavaud p, limosin f. gender effects in bullying: results from a national sample. psychiatry res. 2012;200(2):921-7. 21- atik g, guneri oy. california bullying victimization scale: validity and reliability evidence for the turkish middle school children. procedia socbehav sci. 2012;46(2012):1237-41. 22- cornell dg, sheras pl, cole jcm. assessment of bullying. in: jimerson sr, furlong mj, editors. handbook of school violence and school safety. new jersey: mahwah; 2006. 23- felix ed, sharkey jd, green jg, furlong mj, tanigawa d. getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: the development of the california bullying victimization scale. aggressive behavior. 2011;37(3):234-47. 24- hamburger me, basile kc, vivolo am. measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: a compendium of assessment tools. atlanta, ga: centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, division of violence prevention; 2011. 120. 25- lee t, cornell d. concurrent validity of the olweus bully/victim questionnaire. j sch violence. 2009;9(1):56-73. 26- beran tn. a construct validity study of bullying.alberta journal of educational research. 2006;52(4):241-50. 27- munro bh. statistical methods for health care research. 2 ed. tehran: jameenegar; 2011. 583. 28- papanikolaou m, chatzikosma t, kleio k. bullying at school: the role of family. procedia socbehav sci. 2011;29(2011):433-42. 29- kyriakides l, kaloyirou c, lindsay g. an analysis of the revised olweus bully/victim questionnaire using the rasch measurement model. br j educ psychol. 2006;76(4):781-801. 30- jones e, kay m. instrumentation in cross-cultural research. nursing research. 1992;41:186- 8. 31- hooman ha. structural equation modeling with lisrel aplication. 4 ed. tehran: human sciences research and development center; 2011 winter. 339. 32- mohammadi a, amiri m. behavioral activation for depression scale: psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis for persian version iranian journal of psychiatry and clinical psychology. 2010;16:65-73. 33- livesey g, mcaleavy g, donegan t, duffy j, o’hagan c, adamson g, et al. the nature and extent of bullying in schools in the north of ireland. lifelong learning research centre, university of ulsterjordanstown: northern ireland statistics & research agency; 2007. 112. 34- mcguinness tm. dispelling the myth of bullying. j psychosocnursment health serv. 2007;45(10):19. 35- scheithauer h, hayer t, petermann f, jugert g. physical, verbal, and relational forms of bullying among german students: age trends, gender differences, and correlates. aggressive behavior. 2006;32(3):261-75. 36- diiorio ck. measurement in health behavior: methods for research and evaluation. the united states of america: jossey-bass a wiley imprint; 2005. 37- panayiotis s, anna p, charalambos t, chrysostomos l. prevalence of bullying among cyprus elementary and high school students. glob health gov. 2010;11:114-28. 38- georgiou sn. bullying and victimization at school: the role of mothers. br j educ psychol. 2008;78(1):109-25. 39- karimy m, niknami s, heidarnia a, hajizadeh e. psychometric properties of a theory of planned behavior questionnaire for tobacco use in male adolescents. journal of sabzevar university of medical sciences. 2012;19(2):190-7.