d3 bber tsai-wei huang

7/31/2019 D3 BBER Tsai-Wei Huang

1/24

Developing and Validating a BullyingBystander Emotion Reaction Scale (BBER)

with Two Stages of Factor Analysis Process

Chiao-Lin Huang, Tsai-Wei Huang, I-Chi Tsao

National Chiayi University

08/11/2012


2/24

Introduction

Bullying misbehaviors increased in school

80% of kids in Taiwan had witnessed variousbullying in schools

The Child Welfare League Foundation in Taiwan (CWLFT, 2004)


3/24

Whats bulling?

An intentionally or deliberately negative

action or behavior that has provoked orhurt others in the form of physical, verbalor other indirect methods (Olweus, 2003).


4/24

Bullying Behaviors (Olweus, 2003)

Physical

Verbal

Relational

CounterattackingSexual


5/24

Types of bulling characters

Bullies

Victims

Bystanders


6/24

Innocent for bystanders ?

Bystanders are not the innocents for theyact in the character of helpers or

facilitators through their silent acceptanceor ignorance. (Coloroso, 2005; Liepe-Levinson, & Levinson, 2005 )


7/24

Bystanders Impact

Strengthen bias of the bullying event

Differential treatment

Hinder sympathy, mercy, and respect

~the three basic elements of peer relationship(OConnell, Pepler & Craig, 1999; Coloroso, 2005; Salmivalli, 1999)


8/24

Bystanders emotion reactions wererarely discussed

Bully-Victim relationships are spotlighted(Boulton, 1995; Chiu, 2001, Coloroso, 2005; Hsu, 1999; Li, 2005; Rigby, 1996 ;Tseng,2004; Wei, 2003) .

Rare researches discussed the practical

impact of bullying on bystanders,especially on their emotion reactions.

Lack of instrument for investigatingbullying bystanders emotion reactions


9/24

Purposes

To development an instrument for

investigating bullying bystanders emotionreactions (BBER)


10/24

Questions

1) Whats the contents of bullying

bystander emotion reactions (BBER)?

2) How well is the quality of the BBER

scale?


11/24

Method

Subject:

700 valid 5th and 6th grades (83.33%

return rate) from 18 public elementaryschools in Taiwan.

351 boys (50.14%) and 349 girls (49.86%).


12/24

Rationales of BBER

Wrath

Sadness

Fear

HappinessLike

Shame (Goleman,2000; Heinrichs, 2003; Liepe-Levinson & Levinson, 2005)


13/24

Test construction

Rationales of BBER

Experts opinions

6 dimensions (Wrath, Sadness, Fear, Happiness, Like,Shame )

27 items constructed.


14/24

Item analysis by examining

Missing value

Homogeneity

Internal consistency

Discrimination


15/24

Two stages of Factor Analysis

1st stage

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (N =176 ) 2nd stageConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (N =700).

Model fit evaluation

RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993)CFI (Bentler, 1990)IFI (Bollen, 1989 )

PGFI (Mulaik, et al., 1989),. Computer software package SPSS15 and AMOS5.0


16/24

RESULTS

Final 20 items remained by item analysis

3.02 (2nd)4.1112.09Shame4

1.69 (6 th)2.053.38Like2

2.31 (4 th)4.279.24Happiness4

2.24 (5 th)5.2411.21Fear5

2.6 (3rd)1.915.20Sadness2

3.53 (1st)3.211.60Wrath3

Single Item

Mean

Subscale

Standard

Deviation

Subscale

MeanDimension


17/24

Correlations between dimensions

1.00.28 ( .33 , .28 ).36 ( .44 , .35 ).23 ( .18 , .30 ).35 ( .37 , .20 ).33 (.39 , .25 )Fear

1.00.58 (.60 , .49 ).15 (.23 , .03 ).18 ( .13 , .20 )-.02 (.06 , -.07)Like

1.00.12 (.14 , .09 ).14 (.13 , .67 ).01 (.13 , -.09 )Happiness

1.00.12 (.10, .50 ).39 (.44 , .34 )Shame

1.00.21 (.22 , .19 )Sadness

1.00Wrath

FearLikeHappinessShameSadnessWrath

*p .05; **p .01. (351 boys, 349 girls)


18/24


19/24

Second-order factor model of BBER

2( 162 ) =370.73 (p< .001); RMSEA = .08; CFI= .80; PGFI= .63


20/24

Scale quality


21/24

Conclusion & Discussion

1.BBER comprise 6 dimensions (Wrath,

Sadness, Fear, Happiness, Like, Shame )with final 20 items remained.

2.Most bullying bystander students feelwrath, shame, and sad; few feel happy.

3.Low positive correlations existed among

emotions of wrath, shame, and fear aswell as those of happiness and like.


22/24

4.More than 75% values of factor loadings from EFA weregreater than .50 with accompanying a Cronbach alphacoefficient of .83 and 64% variances explained by the 6factors of BBER.

5.A second- order CFA model of BBER could be acceptedwith moderate model fit evidence.

6.Although only one of the average variance extracted bylatent factors approached the .50 criterion suggested byBagozzi & Yi (1988), the remains were still around .40.

7.Only the Sadness subscale was with composite reliabilitylower than .60 (Bagozzi &Yi,1988), those of other fivesubscales were greater than the criterion.


23/24

Limitations and Suggestions

Sample were not heterogeneous enough

to optimize ideal alpha coefficients insubscales by EFA. Future studies mightcollect various data sets from different

schooling levels of students and comparetheir differences on BBER scale.

Future studies might apply the BBER tothe bullying related topics.


24/24

Thanks for your listening!

d3 bber tsai-wei huang

Documents