MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of a virtual reality enhanced bullying prevention curriculum pilot trial

2019· article· en· W2910488007 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine M. Ingram, Dorothy L. Espelage, Gabriel J. Merrin, Alberto Valido, Jennifer Heinhorst, Mary Joyce

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyPsychologyVirtual realityIntervention (counseling)Poison controlAggressionReality therapySuicide preventionTest (biology)Applied psychologySocial psychologyCurriculumClinical psychologyMedicineComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Bullying is a widely prevalent public health and safety issue that can have serious long-term consequences for youth. Given the limited efficacy of traditional bullying prevention programs, a need exists for novel, theoretically informed, prevention programming. Construal Level Theory provides a useful framework. METHODS: This study evaluated a pseudo-randomized pilot trial of a virtual reality enhanced bullying prevention program among middle school students (N = 118) in the Midwest United States. Two models were proposed. The first predicts reductions in bullying behavior (traditional bullying, cyberbullying, relational aggression) at post-test, mediated by changes in empathy in the virtual reality condition compared to the control condition. The second predicts increases in school belonging and willingness to intervene as an active bystander at post-test, mediated by changes in empathy in the virtual reality condition compared to the control condition. RESULTS: The virtual reality condition yielded increased empathy from pre-to post-intervention compared to the control condition. Through the mediating role of empathy, changes in the desirable directions were also observed for traditional bullying, sense of school belonging, and willingness to intervene as an active bystander, but not for cyberbullying or relational aggression. CONCLUSIONS: The scope and practical limitations of the virtual reality trial prevented a larger scale and more rigorous evaluation; however, results justify an expanded examination of virtual reality as a youth violence prevention tool.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations112
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207