MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397904907 · doi:10.2196/resprot.5292

Prevalence, Motivations, and Social, Mental Health and Health Consequences of Cyberbullying Among School-Aged Children and Youth: Protocol of a Longitudinal and Multi-Perspective Mixed Method Study

2016· article· en· W2397904907 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Faye Mishna, Lauren B. McInroy, Ashley Lacombe-Duncan, Payal Bhole, Melissa Van Wert, Kaitlin Schwan, Arija Birze, Joanne Daciuk, Tanya Beran, Wendy Craig, Debra Pepler, Judith Wiener, Mona Khoury-Kassabri, David Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesQueen's UniversityUniversity of CalgaryHealth CanadaSeneca PolytechnicPublic Health OntarioYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyPerspective (graphical)EmpathyPublic healthDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While the online environment may promote important developmental and social benefits, it also enables the serious and rapidly growing issue of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying constitutes an increasing public health problem - victimized children and youth experience a range of health and mental health concerns, including emotional and psychosomatic problems, maladaptive behaviors, and increased suicidality. Perpetrators demonstrate a lack of empathy, and may also struggle with health and mental health issues. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocols applied in a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed-methods study with five objectives: (1) to explore children/youth's experiences, and children/youth's, parents', and teachers' conceptions, definitions, and understanding of cyberbullying; (2) to explore how children/youth view the underlying motivations for cyberbullying; (3) to document the shifting prevalence rates of cyberbullying victimization, witnessing, and perpetration; (4) to identify risk and protective factors for cyberbullying involvement; and (5) to explore social, mental health, and health consequences of cyberbullying. METHODS: Quantitative survey data were collected over three years (2012-2014) from a stratified random baseline sample of fourth (n=160), seventh (n=243), and tenth (n=267) grade children/youth, their parents (n=246), and their teachers (n=103). Quantitative data were collected from students and teachers during in-person school visits, and from parents via mail-in surveys. Student, parent, and teacher surveys included questions regarding: student experiences with bullying/cyberbullying; student health, mental health, and social and behavioral issues; socio-demographics; and information and communication technology use. In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted twice with a sub-sample of students (n=57), purposively selected based on socio-demographics and cyberbullying experience, twice with their parents (n=50), and once with their teachers (n=30). RESULTS: Data collection for this study is complete. Planned analyses include transition probabilities and repeated measures analyses to determine involvement in cyberbullying. Repeated measures analyses, including between-subject factors (eg, socio-demographics), will be utilized to determine factors that protect or increase risk of involvement in cyberbullying. Qualitative analysis utilizing grounded theory is planned, to permit rich understanding of participant experiences and perspectives. Results will be reported in 2016 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This study will offer insight into the contemporary phenomenon of cyberbullying while also informing interventions to curb cyberbullying and address its pervasive social, mental health, and health consequences. Knowledge mobilization strategies and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207