UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Bullying and anxiety: social emotional programming and episodes of victimization amongst children in… Ruggier, Sarah 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_ruggier_sarah.pdf [ 7.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074137.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074137-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074137-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074137-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074137-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074137-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074137-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074137-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074137.ris

Full Text

	 ? 	 ?BULLYING AND ANXIETY: SOCIAL EMOTIONAL PROGRAMMING AND  EPISODES OF VICTIMIZATION AMONGST CHILDREN IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SETTINGS  by Sarah Ruggier B.A., University of British Columbia, 2007 B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 2008  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Counselling Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2013  ? Sarah Ruggier, 2013 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? ii	 ?Abstract  This study investigated the effects of a school-based anxiety prevention and intervention social emotional learning (SEL) program (i.e., FRIENDS for Life) on anxiety symptoms and the frequency of episodes of victimization due to bullying in an experimental intervention study of elementary aged school children.  Standardized assessments were administered in ten school classrooms in an Independent school district (e.g., nonsecular) to Grade 4 children (N = 205), and were used to assess self-reported levels of frequency of victimization episodes, and anxiety symptoms.  Classrooms were randomly assigned to either the intervention (i.e., FRIENDS for Life SEL program) or a waitlist control group.  Student self-report assessments were collected on two occasions: (a) pre-intervention, and (b) immediately post-intervention.  A three way (2 x 2 x 2) repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to investigate the effect of the treatment on anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization episodes. Results revealed a three-way interaction between time, sex and treatment for victimization episodes. Post hoc analyses revealed that all children?s scores on the frequency of victimization measure increased significantly between Time 1 and 2, except for the males in the intervention group, whose scores remained stable after the treatment. Results indicate that there were no other statistically significant effects of the treatment on anxiety symptoms or frequency of victimization episodes. Pearson correlations assessed the relationship between anxiety symptoms and victimization episodes at Time 1 and Time 2. Results revealed significant positive correlations between the two variables at both assessment time points for the treatment group only.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? iii	 ?Preface   Sarah Ruggier identified the research problem, designed and conducted the study, analyzed the data, and produced this manuscript. The study was supervised by Dr. Lynn Miller.  This research was approved by the University of British Columbia?s Behavioural Research Ethics Board. The Certificate Number of the Ethics Certificate obtained was H12-01345.   This research was also approved by the specific Independent school district of implementation. The School District Superintendent?s office gave written approval for this research project to proceed.               	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? iv	 ?Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1  Introduction and Purpose of the Study .............................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Bullying ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Anxiety ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.3     Consequences of Anxiety and Victimization ............................................................. 2 1.2  The Research Problem ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3  Research Question and Hypotheses .................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................... 7 2.1 Current Views on Bullying and Victimization .................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Four Forms of Bullying .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.2  Bullies, Victims, and Bully-Victims ......................................................................... 11 2.2 Consequences of Bullying and Victimization .................................................................. 12 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? v	 ?2.3  Childhood Anxiety Disorders ......................................................................................... 13 2.4 Anxiety and Victimization ............................................................................................... 14 2.4.1  Common Consequences of Anxiety Disorders and Victimization. .......................... 15 2.5  Best Practices for Bullying Intervention and Prevention ................................................ 16 2.5.1  Effective Intervention Characteristics ...................................................................... 16 2.5.2  Effective Prevention Characteristics ......................................................................... 18 2.5.3  Implications for Current Research ............................................................................ 22 2.6 Intervention:  FRIENDS for Life Program ....................................................................... 23 2.6.1     Evaluation of FRIENDS for Life Program .............................................................. 24 2.6.2     FRIENDS for Life and Victimization ...................................................................... 25 2.7  Summary of the Literature .............................................................................................. 26 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 28 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Ethics Application and School Inclusion Criteria ............................................................ 28 3.3 Recruitment and Incentives .............................................................................................. 29 3.4 Ethical Concerns .............................................................................................................. 29 3.4.1 Confidentiality .......................................................................................................... 31 3.5 Participants ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.6  Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 32 3.7 Measures .......................................................................................................................... 33 3.7.1 Bullying Survey ........................................................................................................ 33 3.7.2  Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) ................................................................ 34 3.7.3  FRIENDS Fidelity Checklists and Treatment Fidelity Contact ............................... 35 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? vi	 ?3.8  Analytic Strategy ............................................................................................................ 37 Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................................... 38 4.1  Overview of the Analyses ............................................................................................... 38 4.2 Preliminary Analysis ........................................................................................................ 38 4.2.1  Participant Data ........................................................................................................ 38 4.2.2  Internal Consistency of Measurement Scales ........................................................... 40 4.3  Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................................... 40 4.3.1  Student Demographic Data ....................................................................................... 40 4.3.2  Description of Means and Standard Deviation ......................................................... 40 4.4  ANOVA .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.4.1  Assumptions of ANOVA .......................................................................................... 43 4.4.2  Research question ..................................................................................................... 43 4.4.3  ANOVA for Anxiety Symptoms .............................................................................. 43 4.4.4  ANOVA for Frequency of Victimization Episodes .................................................. 45 4.5  Correlations of Measurement Subscales ......................................................................... 48 Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 50 5.1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 50 5.2 Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................................................... 51 5.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 52 5.4  Strengths ......................................................................................................................... 55 5.5 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 56 5.6 Suggestions for Future Research ..................................................................................... 57 5.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 58 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? vii	 ?References .................................................................................................................................... 61 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 83 Appendix A: School Package ................................................................................................... 83 Appendix B: Teacher Consent Form ........................................................................................ 85 Appendix C: Parent Consent Form ........................................................................................... 89 Appendix D: Participant Assent Form ...................................................................................... 93 Appendix E: Bullying Survey ................................................................................................... 97 Appendix F: Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) ......................................................... 100 Appendix G: Participant Help & Resources Form ................................................................. 102 Appendix H: Treatment Fidelity Checklist ............................................................................. 105          	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? viii	 ?List of Tables Table 1: Frequency and percentage of student demographic data at Time 1 ............................ 40 Table 2: Sample size and percentage of children with normal, elevated, and clinical anxiety   symptom levels on the Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) for the   independent variables of treatment and sex, Time 1 and Time 2 ............................... 41 Table 3: Percent frequency of endorsed answers for Bully Survey Victimization Subscale.   Time 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................... 42 Table 4: Sample size, mean and standard deviation of the Spence Children?s Anxiety   Scale (SCAS) subscale for the independent variables of treatment and sex ............... 45 Table 5: Sample size, means and standard deviations of the Bullying Survey Victimization   subscale for the independent variables of treatment and sex ...................................... 46 Table 6: Pearson correlations of measurement subscales. Time 1 and 2 .................................. 50   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? ix	 ?List of Figures Figure 1: Enrollment flow chart ................................................................................................. 39 Figure 2: SCAS Estimated Marginal Means:  Total Anxiety Scores of Males and Females  across   two assessment periods ............................................................................................... 45 Figure 3: Bullying Survey ? Frequency of Victimization subscale estimated marginal means   Total Victimization scores of females across two assessment periods ....................... 47 Figure 4: Bullying Survey ? Frequency of Victimization subscale estimated marginal means   Total Victimization scores of males across two assessment periods .......................... 47 Figure 5: Bullying Survey?Frequency of Victimization Subscale Estimated Marginal Means:  Total Victimization Scores of total sample (N=205) across two assessment periods . 48        	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? x	 ?Glossary  Bullying: is an aggressive behaviour that occurs when: (a) there is an imbalance of either psychological or physical strength favoring the bully over the victim, (b) the bully or bullies commit a negative action directed intentionally to harm the victim, and (c) this behaviour is repeated over time (Olweus, 1993). Anxiety disorders:  are characterized by excessive worry or stress (Merikangas, He, Brody et al., 2010), whereas anxiety is a common and normal experience for individuals.   Social Phobia: is characterized by persistent and debilitating distress in social situations or in performances due to social evaluation (Merikangas, He, Brody et al., 2010).                	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? xi	 ?Acknowledgements I could not have completed this thesis with out the guidance and support from several important individuals. I wish to acknowledge each of them, and express my heartfelt gratitude. Firstly, to my supervisor, Dr. Lynn Miller, for offering her knowledge, leadership, and enthusiastic encouragement. She patiently helped find answers to my endless stream of questions, even if it meant she would have to postpone her morning walk, and she consistently challenged me to improve through her attentive feedback.  To my committee members, Dr. Shelley Hymel, and Dr. Sterett Mercer, whose guidance helped me relax and navigate the tough questions I faced in designing this project.  To my supervisor and my committee members for diligently supporting me until the end, with their time, care and expertise: I am forever indebted to them for helping me reach this important milestone. To each of my professors who, over the last 3 years, have contributed to my development as a researcher and counsellor, and who have inspired me to commit myself to this field.  To Ms. Kelly Angelius, from the Ministry of Child and Family Development, for her warm approachability and commitment to helping my fellow students and me. To the independent school board, principals, staff and teachers who participated in this study, their openness to receiving me in their classrooms has made this project a joyful and rich experience.  To the student participants who shared so candidly in this study, I was inspired by our time together. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? xii	 ?To my practicum supervisor, Mike Dadson, who helped me remember why I was doing all this: to learn, to grow, to connect, and to enjoy! To my editor, Brenda DeVries, for her careful attention to detail and edifying conversations.  To my fellow teachers and school administrators at my work, for their ceaseless flexibility and wholehearted support each step of the way.  To my inspiring, loyal and dynamic cohort I feel so blessed to have made this journey with each of you. To my beautiful, hard working, and competent best friends, for their genuine cheerleading, their consistent and selfless assistance, and their enduring loyalty. To Derek, whose unwavering patience and profound wisdom has kept me grounded. To my entire family, who have provided unconditional encouragement and inspiration to keep growing.   To my Aunt Marisa, who always made time to listen to my concerns, and to her children, who have waited to hang out since they were each a foot shorter. I?m done my homework now, let?s play! To my grandfather, for our precious talks and recognizing my potential from a young age. And finally, to my loving parents for instilling in me a deep appreciation for justice, detail, and authenticity. Their tireless support has made all the difference. Thank you. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? xiii	 ?Dedication  I dedicate this thesis to my Grandmother, Maria Ruggier and my beautiful twin cousins, Lindsey and Sadie Louren?o.  My grandmother because she taught me that the secret ingredient to everything in life is to work hard with love.  My cousin Lindsey because she faced her greatest fears with that warm courageous smile to comfort those around her and to fight her battle against cancer. Rest in peace.  My cousin Sadie because she selflessly fought along side her sister every difficult, joyful, frightening and traumatic step of the way.  These three women inspire me daily.        	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 1	 ?Chapter 1: Overview  1.1  Introduction and Purpose of the Study  Bullying behaviours are a widespread problem amongst school-age children, with both short- and long-term consequences for the bully, victim, bystanders, and classrooms or communities in which the bullying occurs (Olweus, 1991).  Researchers (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro & Bukowski, 1999; Kaltiala-Heino, Fr?jd & Martturen, 2010) have found that, among other consequences, being bullied predicts anxiety symptoms.  Furthermore, children who suffer from elevated anxiety symptoms are known to have difficulty with social relationships (Verduin & Kendall, 2008).  Craig (1998) reported a predictive link between self-reported anxiety symptoms and indirect aggression.  However, to date, there is no research that examines the effect anxiety prevention and intervention programs may have on the frequency of bullying and victimization. 1.1.1 Bullying   Bullying is an aggressive behaviour that occurs when: (a) there is an imbalance of either psychological or physical strength favoring the bully over the victim, (b) the bully or bullies commit a negative action directed intentionally to harm the victim, and (c) this behaviour is repeated over time (Olweus, 1993).  Researchers  (e.g., Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Solberg & Olweus, 2003) have indicated that up to 20% of children are repeatedly victimized by peers, and many more are periodically victimized.  Within the classroom, observations have shown that more than two bullying interactions occur per hour (Craig, Pepler & Atlas, 2000).  Both bullies and victimized children tend to report elevated anxiety symptoms (Osofsky, 1995).  Silverman, La Greca and Wassterin (1995) have found that the most frequent and intense worry for children in grades two through six is about personal harm or attack by others.  Several studies (Juvonen, 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 2	 ?Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005) have also indicated that being bullied is linked to increased depression, anger, isolation, hopelessness, lower academic performance, absenteeism, poor self-esteem, eating disorders, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, incarceration, self-injury, increased suicidal ideation, and suicide.   1.1.2 Anxiety  All individuals may experience the emotion of anxiety (Barrett, 2004), but for a child to be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, s/he must suffer from high enough symptom levels to impair functioning (APA, 1994). An anxiety disorders is an internalizing disorder characterized by excessive worry or stress. Anxiety symptoms have varying effects on an individual?s physiological and psychological wellbeing. Some symptoms of anxiety and anxiety disorders include restlessness, poor concentration, crying, clinginess, irritability, avoidance, sleep and or eating problems (?st & Treffers, 2001). Merikangas, He, Burstein et al. (2010) have demonstrated that anxiety disorders are found to be the most common form of disorders in childhood and adolescence, with a lifetime prevalence rate estimated at over 25%.  According to a recent U.S. national survey, by Merikangas, He, Brody et al. (2010), which investigated 12-month prevalence estimates, only 32.5% of children with anxiety disorders, specifically with the subtype generalized anxiety disorder, were likely to seek or receive treatment, which is significantly lower than treatment rates for children with ADHD or conduct disorders.  1.1.3     Consequences of Anxiety and Victimization   Research (Angold et al., 1999; Olweus, 1993; Pompili, Innamorati, Lester, Brunetti, Tatarelli, & Girardi, 2007) has demonstrated that anxiety and victimization have been found to be risk factors in youth suicide.  Anxiety disorders have been found to be independently associated with suicide attempts (Nepon et al., 2010).  When anxiety symptoms are left untreated, 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 3	 ?they tend to get worse and lead to more serious disturbances, such as depression (Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001), suicidal ideation, and suicide (Angold, Costello, & Erkanli, 1999; Nepon, Belik, Bolton, & Sareen, 2010).  Australian research (Beautrais, Joyce, Mulder, & Fergusson, 1996) has shown that reducing the rates of affective disorders (e.g., anxiety and depression) amongst youth may influence the reduction in the incidence of serious suicide attempts by up to 80%, because mood disorders were found to be the greatest risk factor for suicide attempts.  In Canada, in 2003, more than one in five deaths (22%) among youth aged 15 to 24 were due to suicide (Government of Canada, 2006).  According to the United States? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010), suicide is the third leading cause of death for youth between the ages of 10 and 24, resulting in 4,400 lives lost each year. Sadowski and Kelley (1993) have suggested that suicide attempters tend to have an inaccurate perception of problems, respond more emotionally towards personal dilemmas, and respond less adaptively to problematic situations than their peers (both distressed and non-distressed peers). White (1998) reported that youth suicides are in part due to problems gaining acceptance and approval among peers.  Further, research (Olweus, 1993) has suggested that both bullying and victimization are risk factors for depression and suicide as many suicides are reportedly linked to bullying and victimization (Juvonen et al., 2000; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Nishina et al., 2005). The relationship between anxiety and victimization may be relevant as both are linked to suicide. 1.2  The Research Problem Up to 20% of youth report having experienced victimization (Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Solberg & Olweus, 2003) and more than 25% of children and adolescents suffer from anxiety disorders (Merikangas, He, Burstein et al., 2010). The experience of victimization due to bullying has been repeatedly linked to internalizing symptomatology such as anxiety (Gladstone, 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 4	 ?Parker, & Malhi, 2006; Huphrey, Storch, & Geffk en, 2007; La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Storch, Zelman, Sweeney, Danner & Dove, 2002). Victimization has been found to aggravate and increase anxiety symptoms in children (Booth-LaForce et al., 2012). Given the effects victimization appears to have on anxiety symptoms, there is limited research that assesses the effect bullying prevention and intervention programs have on concomitant mental health issues (Swearer, Collins, Haye, Radliff, & Wang, 2011) such as anxiety.   Further, links have been found (Ladd et al., 2011) between anxiety symptoms and victimization.  Predictive links between anxious withdrawal and peer exclusion (Booth-LaForce et al., 2012), and solitary anxious youth and victimization (Ladd, Kochenderfer-Ladd, Eggum, Kochel, & McConnell, 2011) have emerged in recent research, suggesting that children in these studies who experience such anxiety symptoms are prone to experiencing victimization. Given the empirical links that have been established between anxiety symptoms and victimization, there is no research to date examining the effect an anxiety prevention and intervention program may have on frequency of victimization. The FRIENDS for Life program is aimed at addressing anxiety symptoms by teaching social-emotional skills and enhancing resiliency through interpersonal skills and emotion regulation skills (e.g., deep breathing, muscle relaxation techniques). It is an evidence-based intervention that is formatted for classroom use. Outcomes of the FRIENDS program for anxious children include: normalization of internalized anxious feelings, increased sources of reinforcement, use of positive social skills in anxiety-provoking situations, emotional resilience, problem solving abilities, self-efficacy, self-confidence, empathy, and modeling of helping behaviour (Barrett, 1998).  The outcomes provided by the FRIENDS program may address the need for anxious children to be able to respond in healthy ways and cope with victimization.  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 5	 ?As two thirds of children who are estimated to suffer from anxiety symptoms and disorders are unlikely to seek or receive treatment (Merikangas, He, Brody et al., 2010), classroom based anxiety prevention programs, such as the FRIENDS for Life program, are important to evaluate for their effects on children?s experience of mental health issues.  Benefits of the FRIENDS program are inconsistent, as some studies show results of a decrease in anxiety symptoms (Barrett et al., 2001), while other studies show no change following the treatment program (Miller et al., 2011; Rose et al., 2009).  Therefore, more research on programs that address mental health symptoms and how they may relate to and help address victimization in schools (Swearer et al., 2011) is necessary. This study aims to evaluate the effect the FRIENDS for Life program has on anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization episodes as reported by program participants in a school setting.  1.3  Research Question and Hypotheses  The primary research question for this study is: What is the relationship between self-report anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization episodes following an anxiety prevention and early intervention program, FRIENDS for Life, as reported by Grade 4 student participants in an Independent school setting? The study?s hypotheses are:  H1  Following participation in the FRIENDS for Life program, self-reported levels of    anxiety will decrease significantly for the active intervention group as compared    to mean scores obtained from the waitlist control group.    H2 Following participation in the FRIENDS for Life program, self-reported scores of    frequency of victimization episodes will decrease significantly for the   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 6	 ?  active intervention group as compared to mean scores obtained     from the waitlist control group.   H3 There will be a direct and positive relationship between frequency of     victimization and anxiety symptoms.   In summary, children who experience repetitive victimization, due to bullying, may be at risk for negative mental health effects during their development and throughout their lifetime (Rigby, 2001).  Given the links between victimization and mental health issues, research on the relationship between victimization and associated mental health symptoms such as anxiety, are recommended.             	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 7	 ?Chapter 2: Review of the Literature  Being the victim of bullying at any age or in any setting can cause pain and may prolong self-development or maturity (Li, 2007).  The consequences are not reserved for victims alone.  Passive bystanders and bullies may also suffer from witnessing or engaging in repetitive bullying (Li, 2007).  It is well demonstrated through research (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010) that both bullies and victims are at risk for the adverse effects bullying has on mental health (e.g., anxiety symptoms) and overall wellbeing.  This chapter will review present views on bullying, consequences of bullying and victimization, anxiety symptoms in children, links between victimization and anxiety symptoms, and the currently reported best practices for bullying prevention. This chapter will end with an explanation and evaluation of the FRIENDS for Life Program as well as its implication for victimization in a school setting.   2.1 Current Views on Bullying and Victimization Bullying, in all forms, is an epidemic that has infected almost every classroom (Olweus, 1991) worldwide (Eslea et al., 2003).  It is estimated that more than 200 million children and youth are victimized by their peers (Richter & Howard, 2003).  According to the World Health Organization?s international study, Health Behaviours in School-Aged Children Survey, being bullied 2 to 3 or more times in the previous months was considered repeated victimization and an appropriate cut-off point to determine children at a higher risk for the negative effects of bullying (Craig & Yossi, 2004). An average of 11% of youth between 9 and 15 years of age report being bullied, and 11% report being a part of bullying their peers three or more times in the previous couple of months (Craig & Yossi, 2004). These averages hide significant variance among the 35 surveyed countries, with a range of approximately 2% to 40% of respondents reporting bullying 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 8	 ?and victimization.  Youth from Canada placed among the higher-ranking youth of both bullying and victimization from all 35 countries, and endorsed among the highest percentages; 26th and 27th respectively.   British Columbia?s Ministry of Education (2008) report on Safe, Caring, and Orderly Schools defined bullying similarly to Olweus? (1993) traditionally accepted definition.  The British Columbia?s Ministry of Education (2008) defined bullying as a pattern of repeated aggressive behaviours over time, with negative intent, directed from one person to another (or between groups and an individual) where there is a power imbalance (2008). Olweus (1997) emphasized there must be this imbalance of power for a negative interaction to be considered bullying.  Therefore, hostile interactions where two individuals maintain approximately equal social status, physical strength, and/or psychological strength should not be labeled as bullying (Olweus, 1997).  The imbalance of power can be related to physical or psychological strength of the bully over the victim (Lagerspetz, Bj?rkqvist, Berts, & King, 1982) or to group membership, such as belonging to a clique or gang (Marsh et al., 2011).  The imbalance may also be due to the perception of the victim, where the victim believes he/she is powerless, fears the bully, or is otherwise impaired from protecting him/herself (Parada, 2002).  Regardless of the cause of the imbalance, the bully acts to exploit his or her advantage over the victim by dominating him/her (Marsh et al. 2011).  Repeated victimization weakens the victim increasingly over time, making him/her more vulnerable to victimization.  The term ?repeated aggressive behaviour? is emphasized in order to exclude either occasional or singular attempts to harm an individual (Olweus, 1993).  An emerging definition of bullying forwarded by Craig and colleagues (2008) shifts focus to a relational model between the bully and victim.  In this perspective, the act of bullying 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 9	 ?creates a destructive relationship where the bully uses aggression and power to control or distress a weaker peer.  The already vulnerable victim becomes increasingly trapped and powerless to resolve problems within the bully-victim relationship.  In this perspective, both the bully and the victim need support to overcome destructive relational patterns and to develop healthy relationships.  Both the bully and the victim suffer from limited resources to shift the aggressive dynamic of bullying.   2.1.1 Four Forms of Bullying   Typically, bullying is part of a ?complex interplay of dominance and social status? (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999, p. 702), where the bully or bullies act to maintain or augment their power over their targeted victims.  There are two major dimensions of bullying: direct and indirect (Gumpel, 2008; Rivers & Smith, 1994).  Within these two dimensions of direct and indirect bullying, several forms of bullying have been described, including but not limited to physical and relational aggression, verbal attacks (Olweus, 1993), and cyberbullying (Wang Iannotti, & Luk, 2010).  Direct or overt bullying methods include physical (e.g., hitting, pushing, and kicking) and verbal bullying (e.g., name calling and teasing in a hurtful way) (Olweus, 1993).  Indirect forms of bullying are covert behaviours and are typically relational or antisocial in nature (Marsh et al., 2011; Rigby & Slee, 1999).  Relational bullying is characterized by behavior that is intended to harm someone by damaging or manipulating his or her relationships, such as gossiping and spreading rumors (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).  Cyberbullying has been defined as any direct or indirect aggressive behaviour performed through electronic or digital media (e.g., cell phones, social networking sites) by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicate hostility to inflict harm, to threaten harm, or to cause discomfort in others (Wang, Iannotti, & Luk, 2010).  Cyberbullying is a more recent phenomenon; in some cases symptoms 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 10	 ?of cyberbullying have proven to be considerably more invasive and damaging than the traditional forms of bullying (Li, 2007).  Victims of cyberbullying were found more likely to report depression than their traditional bully and victim counterparts (Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011).  Research (Wang et al., 2010) has found that cyberbullying makes up 13.8% of bullying incidents, and it has also become a concern impeding healthy development.  Widening the focus of research on traditional bullying to include cyberbullying is therefore relevant and necessary because of the degree of its impact on victims (Wang et al., 2011).    The differential impact between traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying is important to note and may be due to certain characteristics of cyberbullying that make it more invasive and inescapable than traditional bullying.  For example, a victim may be attacked by an anonymous bully in the form of dehumanizing images or rumors, which can cause the victim to feel isolated and helpless at the time of the attack (Wang et al., 2011), and for long periods after the attack because the content of the attack continues to exist publicly online.  Cyberbullying may foster disinhibition and reduce social accountability due to anonymity, making it easier for users to engage in more hostile and aggressive behaviour that, in turn, heightens the negative effects (Wang et al., 2011).    A recent study (Li, 2007) on the close relationship between cyberbullying and traditional bullying determined that despite the potentially harsher effects of cyberbullying, these two forms may be addressed simultaneously, as the same individuals who bully in a more traditional sense are also likely to be cyber-bullies.  Li (2007) also found that victims of in-school bullying are likely to be cyber-bullies.  Students who are both victims and bullies are called bully-victims and engage in what is known as the bullying-victim cycle (Li, 2007).  Therefore, because of the close ties between bullying and cyberbullying, effective measures taken to prevent bullies from 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 11	 ?bullying may also be used to prevent cyber-bullies from cyberbullying (Li, 2007).   2.1.2  Bullies, Victims, and Bully-Victims   According to a peer nomination study done on bullying and power (Vaillancourt, Hymel & McDougall, 2003), bullies in general were viewed by their classmates as aggressive and were disliked.  However, subgroups of bullies emerged in which bullies were considered high power, moderate power, or low power bullies.  Vaillancourt et al. (2003) showed that student perceptions of high power bullies were overall more favourable than the other subgroups.  High power bullies were perceived as having more popularity, leadership qualities, competencies, and assets, such as athleticism and attractiveness.  In addition, they were seen as more physically and relationally aggressive than their lower power counterparts.  In this study, Vaillancourt and colleagues (2003) demonstrated that peer-identified, higher power bullies perceived themselves as more socially competent and efficacious, less lonely, and had higher self worth than moderate or low power bullies.  In this study, bullying in general was not significantly related to depression.  This study did not address differences among victims due to bullying.   In their study, Fris?n, Jonsson, and Persson (2007) assessed adolescent perceptions of bullies and victims. They found that the majority of respondents reported that bullies bully because they have low self-esteem.  When asked what made bullying stop, the most popular responses were that the bully matured or that the victim stood up for himself/herself.  Very few of the respondents attributed a stop in bullying to adults intervening.  An interesting finding from this study is that adolescents who reported they had never been involved in childhood bullying and victimization believed more strongly that victims could stand up for themselves than adolescents who reported having experiences with bullying and victimization.  When asked, 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 12	 ?however, adolescents who perceived themselves as victims did not believe they could stand up for themselves.     A study by Kochenderfer-Ladd (2003) has made it clear that bullying and victimization are not mutually excusive from one another.  Children known as bully-victims are characterized as those who act aggressively, and, in turn, are recipients of much hostility (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2003).  Bully-victim status is often maintained due to maladaptive aggressive behavior, attracting or provoking attacks from others.  Bully-victims are also seen to aggravate more powerful bullies in an effort to retaliate.  Bully-victims differ from victims in that their retaliation styles establish a cycle that both provoke further attacks and maintain their status as a victim.  Prevalence rates of bully-victims are considerably lower (1% - 7%) than those for children who are identified as only bullies or only victims (Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003; Olweus, 1993), and tend to decline across childhood into adolescence (Solberg, Olweus & Endresen, 2007).  For children in middle childhood, commonly seen as ages 8 to 10 (Vaillancourt et al., 2008), prevalence data show a 30% to 50% rate of overlap between bullies and bully-victims.  Solberg and colleagues (2007) also found that boys are more likely to be bully-victims than are girls.   2.2 Consequences of Bullying and Victimization  Victimization has been linked to negative short- and long-term effects.  Increased anxiety, depression, anger, isolation, hopelessness, lower academic performance, absenteeism, poor self-esteem, eating disorders, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, self-injury, and increased suicidal ideation and suicide are among the most serious effects (Rigby, 2001).  Casey-Cannon, Hayward, and Cowen (2001) have clearly shown that targets of relational bullying tend to be more depressed, more anxious, and have lower self-esteem than targets of other types of bullying (e.g., physical, or verbal). Researchers such as Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009), are not clear if 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 13	 ?children who are depressed or anxious and have low self-esteem are more prone to victimization, or if bullying is a cause for such symptoms.  2.3  Childhood Anxiety Disorders   Anxiety disorders are a mental health problem that has been found to affect 10% to 15% of children (Chavira, Stein, Bailey, & Stein, 2004; Foxman, 2004).  Researchers report varying prevalence rates for anxiety disorders in children.  According to some researchers (e.g., Barrett, 2004), prevalence rates reach an average of 15.7% among 12-year-olds.  Other findings (e.g., Bernstein & Borchardt, 1991) suggested a lower average of about 8% for the diagnosis of the most common form of anxiety disorders found in childhood.  Other research (e.g., Chavira et al., 2004; Costello et al., 2003) has suggested 10% to 20% of children report distressing levels of anxiety, both in the general population and in primary care settings.  Children who suffer from elevated anxiety symptoms or disorders experience more difficulty with interpersonal relationships, social competence, peer relations, and school adjustment than children who do not suffer from anxiety symptoms or disorders (Barrett, 1998; Dweck & Wortman, 1982; Last, Hanson, & Franco, 1997; McGee & Stanton, 1990; ?st & Treffers, 2001; Strauss, Frame, & Forehand, 1987).  Recent research (Booth-LaForce et al., 2012) has shown that social-exclusion is related to increased anxious-withdrawal response.  Social exclusion occurs when peers overtly communicate rejection of their peers, such as when peers state to each other ?you can?t play? (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003).  Anxiety may be triggered in commonly victimized students repeatedly exposed to harm by bullying (Silverman et al., 1995).  This increased anxiety related to being bullied further supports a link between anxiety and victimization.  A child who suffers from anxiety-related symptoms may be more vulnerable to being victimized than a child who does not have elevated anxiety levels.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 14	 ?2.4 Anxiety and Victimization  Some research (e.g., Craig, 1998; Swearer et al., 2011) has suggested that anxiety may be a predictor of victimization. Anxiety symptoms may be found to be a risk factor in being targeted as a victim (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2003).  Research suggests that children with inhibited temperaments have a vulnerability to develop anxiety problems (Gladstone, Parker, Mitchell, Wilhelm, & Malhi 2005), and are more frequently victimized (Berk, 2005).  Longitudinal research by Kochenderfer-Ladd (2003) has shown that anxiety symptoms and peer exclusion co-occur in children.  More recent research (Flanagan, Erath & Bierman, 2008) demonstrated that social anxiety, a subtype of anxiety disorders, is a predictor of peer victimization.  These findings indicate that anxiety may play a role in social interactions and perhaps be a factor in the degree of victimization and isolation a vulnerable child might experience.  If a child?s anxiety were to be addressed through a prevention program, the possible benefits of reducing his/her anxiety might also produce the effect of lowering his/her vulnerability to victimization.  Despite the links between anxiety symptoms and victimization, the relationship between anxiety prevention and intervention programs for schools, and victimization has not been well studied (Swearer et al., 2011).   A key feature of anxiety is repeated exposure to stimuli that an individual learns to associate with harm (Silverman et al., 1995).  Silverman and colleagues (1995) proposed that anxiety might be a logical consequence of being repeatedly exposed to physical or psychological harm through bullying.  In their study, Silverman et al. found that children in grades 2-6 reported personal harm or attack by peers as their most intense worry amongst other social concerns.  Personal harm or attack by peers is a form of direct bullying.  The other social concerns reported in Silverman?s study can all be described as indirect bullying: rejection, exclusion from social 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 15	 ?activities, being ignored by others, and betrayal.  It follows then, that repeated exposure to harmful social contexts such as direct or indirect bullying can induce anxiety (Craig, 1998).   2.4.1  Common Consequences of Anxiety Disorders and Victimization.   Both childhood anxiety and victimization have been shown to lead to depression.  Depressive symptoms are common among those who have been bullied (?st & Treffers, 2001) and among those who suffer from anxiety in childhood (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1993).  Children with anxiety disorders are more likely than children without anxiety disorders to experience depression in later life (Costello, Mustillo, Erkanli, Keeler, & Angold, 2003). Depression is characterized by a sad and apprehensive emotional state.Feelings of worthlessness, of guilt, and of withdrawal from others, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, and loss of pleasure in usual activities also mark the onset of depression (Barrett, 2004).  Depression is often associated with other psychological problems or life situations.  For example, when a child witnesses conflict within their family, he/she may withdraw and become depressed.  To be diagnosed with depression, a person must show at least some of these symptoms to a degree that is out of proportion to the person?s normal life situation (Barrett, 2004).  The estimated prevalence of depression varies between childhood and adolescence, ranging from 0.4% to 2.5% for children and from 0.4% to 8.3% for adolescents (Birmaher et al., 1996).   Among many other symptoms, youth with depression report negative perceptions of themselves, the world, and their future (Beck, Rush, Shaw & Emery, 1979).  Additionally, they are prone to experiencing problems in their interpersonal relationships, distorted thinking, poor problem-solving skills (Friedberg & McClure, 2002), and suicidal ideation (APA, 1994).  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 16	 ?Research (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002) on school shootings in the past thirty years has revealed serious consequences associated with depression and victimization.  Results have shown that 79% of the shooters had a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, 61% had a history of serious depression, and over 66% were considered victims of bullying prior to the shooting incident.  Research (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Martturen, Rimpela & Rantanen, 1999) has shown that victims between the ages of 14 and 16 were at risk for hopelessness, depression and suicidal ideation.   A temporal link has been found to exist between the two internalizing disorders (i.e., anxiety and depression) as symptoms of anxiety are often found to precede the onset of depression in youth (Cole, Peeke, Martin, Truglio & Seroczynski, 1998; Craske & Zucker, 2002; Kovacs, 1996).  Additionally, children and youth with both anxiety and depression are found to be older than their anxious-only counterparts (Barrett, 2004). Links between anxiety and depression are clear, and the relationship between bullying and depression is also fairly well established; these relationships suggest a need for empirical research to understand more directly the relationship between anxiety and bullying.   2.5  Best Practices for Bullying Intervention and Prevention 2.5.1  Effective Intervention Characteristics   For victims of bullying, interventions and support may be offered both at the individual level and the group level.  According to research by Harris and Petrie (2003), anti-bullying interventions should focus on both internalizing and externalizing social-emotional capacities.  Increasing assertiveness skills, developing a more positive self-concept, increasing social skills to reducing social isolation, and practicing positive social behaviors in order to reduce the risk of 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 17	 ?further victimization are all interventions to reduce the extent of victimization.  These social-emotional capacities may allow students to increase their confidence to lower their anxiety in social situations with peers and bullies.  According to other researchers (e.g., DeRosier, 2004; Fox & Boulton, 2003), however, social skills deficits may not be wholly responsible for bullying, as context, temperament, and other factors may also contribute to an inability to or a belief about an inability to defend oneself. Interventions that address victimized children?s negative self-opinions, improve their social skills, and teach them assertive but non-aggressive responses to attackers are all valuable lessons to help children cope with bullying attacks (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003).  Teaching assertiveness may be seen as a benefit for bystanders as well because they may be more likely and better equipped to defend their peers when bullying occurs.  More research is necessary to inform practitioners, such as teachers and school counsellors, about how cultivating the positive outcomes listed above interact with lowering anxiety, decreasing the impulse to bully, increasing the likelihood they will choose to defend victims, and impacting the victim?s response to being bullied.   Although based on limited research, intervention programs that contribute to creating a school climate where principles of restorative justice are upheld may be more likely to successfully deal with bullying problems than schools with a punitive approach to bullying (Smith, 2008).  Smith explains that restorative justice practices in the classroom are centered on relationships among the students involved in the bullying incidents.  One of the key elements of applying restorative justice in a classroom is through the use of questions and discussions.  Questions such as ?How can the misbehavior be rectified?? allow teachers, together with students, to determine appropriate sanctions for the perpetrator that encourages accountability 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 18	 ?and which encourage healing and forgiveness on the part of the victim.  Another key feature of effective prevention techniques is modeling caring and respectful relationships among adults in school communities.    There is evidence that school-wide approaches to bullying interventions are not wholly effective for aggressive youth (Dishion, McCord & Poulin, 1999).  And, because of the ever-growing connection between bullying and mental health issues, more recent research (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999) is beginning to recommend interventions designed to address both externalizing (e.g., aggressive behaviour) and internalizing (i.e., anxiety or depression) symptoms for students involved in bullying (i.e., bullies, victims, bystanders and bully-victims).  Individual treatment for those affected by bullying behaviours is an important intervention to consider (Doll & Swearer, 2006) and should be tailored for the specific characteristics of the students in need of the intervention (Swearer et al.,  2011).  For example, therapeutic interventions, which help increase self-esteem and assertiveness training for passive victims (Carney & Merrel, 2001) help in reducing victimization, or teaching skills that can replace aggressive behaviours to help reduce bullying behaviours in bully-victims or bullies (Batsche, 1997).   2.5.2  Effective Prevention Characteristics In Greenberg, Domitrovich, and Bumbarger?s article (2001) on Preventing Mental Health Disorders in School-aged Children, they describe key factors that lead to the success of prevention programs for mental health disorders.  They state that prevention program content is best to be directed at risk and protective factors, rather than at specific behaviour problems.  In addition, success of such programs is more likely when their focus is widened from the child?s 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 19	 ?behaviour to also include multiple domains such as changing the school environment, improving family dynamics, and strengthening the relationship between the home and the school.   Bullying prevention programs are more likely to be effective when the characteristics of the program match the needs and the resources of the community implementing them (Hazler & Carney, 2006).  Hazler and his colleagues described program themes and sequential program stages that are key characteristics of effective bullying prevention programs regardless of the local context.  Program themes include (a) a sociological perspective, (b) the reduction of the isolation of people and ideas, and (c) an increase in empathic involvement.   Programs that incorporate a sociological perspective tend to take a universal approach rather than addressing small pockets of individuals.  Such programs involve as many individuals and groups in the prevention efforts as possible.  They have small group or classroom-based learning, school-wide approaches, and parental and community outreaches (Hazler & Carney, 2006).   The theme of reducing isolation of people and ideas implies promoting social connections between individuals through the open discussion of ideas, beliefs, and feelings.  It also implies that the program incorporates strong directives and support for changing thoughts, beliefs, and behaviours to be consistent with prosocial and anti-bullying practices, including changes in school-wide policy and collaborative activities.  Research has shown that less social support predicts the severity and frequency of bullying; therefore, increasing social supports and reducing social isolation may reduce opportunities for bullying to occur (Hodges et al., 1999; Kilpatrick Demeray & Kerres Malecky, 2003).   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 20	 ?In addition to increasing knowledge or information, programs that promote empathic involvement create and maintain connections between students on an emotional level.  Empathy is a key mechanism in determining how an individual may react in a bullying situation (Espelage & Swearer, 2003) and in motivating prosocial behaviour.  Having an empathic understanding of weaker peers may significantly reduce the bully?s motivation to choose to abuse the victim (Hazler et al., 2006).   Critical characteristics of bullying prevention programs include the following sequential stages: initial awareness building, policy development, skill development, continuing involvement, and lastly, assessment and adjustment (Hazler et al., 2006).  Hazler and his colleagues explain that initial awareness building creates both knowledge and emotional awareness of the effects of bullying and instills a sense of urgency and a desire to change behaviour.  Policy development involves input from as many participants as possible (e.g., parents, students, and teachers) to create agreed upon values and rules with corresponding enforcement procedures.  Skill development implies teaching prosocial skills to bullies, victims, and bystanders and gives participants creative and assertive responses to promote the agreed upon values that combat bullying.  Continuing involvement indicates that the program provides opportunities for regular discussions on changes being made in the school?s climate.  Additionally, it gives opportunity for students to express their thoughts and feelings, including both positive changes and ongoing problems.  Lastly, Hazler and his colleagues describe that strong bullying prevention programs incorporate an element of assessment and of adjustment by providing opportunities to evaluate progress and changing needs and to encourage creative ways of adjusting efforts to suite the needs of the local context.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 21	 ? In their longitudinal effectiveness study of school-based bullying interventions done in Australia, Cross et al. (2008) demonstrated that multi-level, whole-school, classroom, and family interventions were necessary aspects of successful bullying prevention and intervention programs.  Results from this study also indicated that two-year interventions among older primary school students were more effective than partial-year or one year interventions.  Although the FRIENDS for Life program does not explicitly include bully prevention material, some of the characteristics of effective bully prevention programs are embedded in the recommended structure of the FRIENDS for Life program.  The principles include: (a) to provide cooperative learning activities that actively engage students in enhancing personal development and social skills, (b) to encourage the peer group to provide support for each other, and (c) to establish close cooperation between staff and parents to establish a consistent message across home and school (Barrett, 2004; Cross et al., 2008).   Children who suffer from anxiety also tend to lack the effective coping skills to manage their internal distress (Greenberg et al., 2001).  The CBT model upon which FRIENDS is based attempts to restructure the automatic thoughts and perceptions of children to help them cope with their anxiety while improving their self-concept and agility in social situations.  The program also involves parents through a parent information sessions.  Greenberg and his colleagues argued that programs that feature both teachers and parents learning alongside their students and children create a common vocabulary between school and home.  A common language to address bullying between school and home increases the domains in which the prevention attempts may reach and lends to the transferability of skills learned in the classroom to the home environment. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 22	 ?2.5.3  Implications for Current Research   In line with current research, causes for bullying do not rest solely on the bully?s perceived intent, or on the victim?s perceived weakness to defend him or herself.  Other factors must be taken into account, such as school policy for bullying, social support for victims, and social skills for both the bully and the victims (Hazler & Carney, 2006).  How children perceive their experience of bullying or being victimized must also be taken into account to understand their behaviour.  For example, some bullies may bully as a coping mechanism because they believe they are defending themselves from hostile attacks (Orobio de Castro et al., 2002), and some victims may be more vulnerable to negative effects of bullying than others (Flanagan et al., 2008).  Bullying interactions are complex social interactions (Sutton et al., 1999).  Limiting the study of bullying and victimization to any one contributing factor would hamper our understanding of its complexity.  While designing research to build a comprehensive understanding of the bullying phenomenon, researchers must take into account multiple factors (e.g., social skills, school climate, school policy) as well as remain open to incorporating new factors, which may not yet have been considered.  For example, links between victimization and mental health issues are abundant in the literature (Hodges et al., 1999; Juvonen et al., 2000; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Nishina et al., 2005; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Swearer et al., 2010;).  However, there are no treatments designed, as yet, that address internalizing mental health issues, (e.g., anxiety symptoms) and simultaneously target children who are involved in victimization (Swearer et al.,  2011).    Children between the ages of eight and ten, who span the category of middle childhood (Vaillancourt et al., 2008), are marked developmentally by a shift towards seeing other people?s internal qualities, and by the ability to use abstract descriptions of dispositions (Vaillancourt et 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 23	 ?al., 2008).  Research has shown the latter phase of middle childhood to be marked by fast-paced changes, including a shift away from parental influence to a greater focus on peers and social acceptance (Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Thompson, 2009; Steinberg, 2005; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006).  With an emerging focus on others? traits in middle childhood and on social acceptance in early adolescence, this time period appears to be a critical and relevant age to teach children strategies that may influence their developing interactions in a positive manner. 2.6 Intervention:  FRIENDS for Life Program   FRIENDS for Life, (FRIENDS; Canadian Edition; Barrett, 2004) is a cognitive-behavioural (CBT) anxiety prevention and resiliency skill building program for children in their middle childhood in grades 4 and 5.  The program comes with a Group Leaders Manual and a Workbook for Children.  It is an evidence-based intervention that is formatted for classroom use.  According to the manual, when used by teachers and school counsellors, FRIENDS can bring children who suffer from anxiety symptoms at a clinical level down to a ?normal? range, without the need for further treatment (Barrett, 2004).  Normal is defined as the child being able to cope with day-to-day life experiences, and is not overwhelmed by his/her anxiety symptoms.  The name of the program, FRIENDS, is an acronym that stands for the skills taught in the program: F - feeling worried R - relax and feel good  I - inner thoughts E - explore plans of action N - nice work, reward yourself  D - don?t forget to practice these new skills  S - smile, stay cool and calm? (Barrett, 2004). 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 24	 ?The program uses these terms to teach children to recognize maladaptive thoughts and physical symptoms associated with anxiety symptoms through a series of 10 lessons, reflections, and activities.    The FRIENDS for Life program is sponsored by the Ministry of Children and Family Development in western Canada, and makes training and workbooks available to teachers and students, respectively.  Manuals, workbooks, and teacher training for the FRIENDS program have been made available to all schools and Independent schools in western Canada for grades K/1, 4/5 and 7/8.  It is stated in the manual (Barrett, 2004) that the program is suitable for use alongside other school-based, mental health programs, including bullying programs (Barrett, 2004).  It does not claim that a reduction in bullying or victimization is an expected outcome of the intervention?s delivery.  Due to the wide use of this program in schools, there is a need for ongoing research, including research on the program?s impact on the social-emotional development of children in schools and bullying and victimization.   2.6.1     Evaluation of FRIENDS for Life Program   According to some research (Dadds, Spence, Holland, Barrett, & Laurens, 1997), early interventions such as this cognitive behaviour based FRIENDS program, have been shown to reduce the number of children who develop anxiety disorders.  A long-term follow-up study (Barrett, Duffy, Dadds, & Rapee, 2001) has shown some stability in reducing anxiety over a period of six years; however confounding methodological variables make it difficult to ascertain that a reduction in anxiety symptoms is a direct result of the program (e.g., anxiety measures at follow-up limited to self-report rather than diagnostic or adult informant observations).  Other attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of the FRIENDS program (Miller et al., 2011; Rose, Miller, 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 25	 ?& Martinez, 2009) have not been able to demonstrate that the FRIENDS program reduces anxiety significantly.  2.6.2     FRIENDS for Life and Victimization    As the FRIENDS for Life program promotes self-development, exploring whether it has an impact on negative interpersonal interactions such as bullying or perceived victimization is warranted. Some evaluations of the FRIENDS program have shown statistically significant increases in children?s coping abilities (Lock & Barrett, 2003) and increases in self-esteem and in social skills (Barrett, Farrell, Ollendick, & Dadds, 2006).  Lock and Barrett (2003) found that the FRIENDS program effectively increased children?s ability to confront stressful situations.  A study on coping strategies used when dealing with bullying amongst Greek primary school children (Andreou, 2001) was designed to evaluate the relationship between coping strategies, bullying and victimization.  Results revealed that victimization could be predicted by a deficit in social skills, and that teaching prosocial skills may have some effect on preventing victimization.  Other research (DeRosier, 2004; Fox & Boulton, 2003), has demonstrated that social skills training does not have as significant an impact on bullying and victimization as was initially thought.  It may not be possible for victimized children to stop to their own victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Salmivalli, 2009), regardless of social skill talent.  Researchers (e.g., Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Salmivalli, 2009) proposed that victimized children need supports such as assertive assistance from peers, and a school climate that effectively and explicitly counters bullying behaviour to help stop victimization. Hawkins, Pepler, and Craig (2001), have found that when peer bystanders intervene, bullying stops within 10 seconds 57% of the time.  Education professionals may help reduce victimization by teaching all children prosocial communication and assertiveness skills.  This may equip more bystanders 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 26	 ?to intervene and to act as a catalyst to stop bullying and in turn contribute to positive shifts in school climate to reduce bullying.  Teaching prosocial skills alongside introducing anti-bullying policies that are better understood and widely reinforced in school contexts may have a greater effect on reducing bullying, rather than focusing on prosocial skills alone (Smith, 2008). Given the cost and wide spread use of the FRIENDS for Life program in many elementary schools in western Canada, its focus on pro-social skills, and the economic cost of both victimization and anxiety to society, investigating the impact this social-emotional learning program has on victimization may be useful.   2.7  Summary of the Literature    Research has shown that bullying is a complex and widespread issue amongst children in school settings (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999) where bullying incidents tend to contribute to a destructive relationship cycle using aggression and power to control or distress a weaker peer (Swearer et al., 2011).  There is a consensus amongst the research (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Swearer et al., 2010) which supports that bullies, victims, and bystanders involved in bullying interactions are at risk for the adverse and potentially long term effects of bullying.  Victimization and anxiety have both been found to be precursors to depression, suicidal ideation and suicide (Rigby, 2001; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Swearer, et al., 2010).  More research of intervention and prevention strategies is needed to address bullying at the individual (Doll & Swearer, 2006; Swearer et al., 2011) and group level, and to address concomitant mental health symptoms that may stem from victimization (Swearer et al., 2011).     This study aims to evaluate how addressing anxiety symptoms through an anxiety prevention and intervention program might change the frequency of victimization for 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 27	 ?participating students.  The next chapter will outline the method this study will use to evaluate the anxiety prevention and intervention program (FRIENDS for Life) and its effect on anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization amongst grade four students in elementary school settings.    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 28	 ?Chapter 3: Methodology  3.1 Introduction   This research study explored the effect an anxiety prevention and intervention program had on anxiety symptoms and frequency of victimization due to bullying as reported by children in their middle childhood in Independent school settings.  This study included ten grade 4 classrooms of children randomly assigned to either an experimental (active intervention) group or a waitlist control group.  Classes in the active intervention group participated in the FRIENDS for Life program (Barrett, 2004), an anxiety prevention and resiliency skill-building program based on cognitive behaviour principles for classroom implementation.  The waitlist control group participated in the FRIENDS for Life program following the second and final post-intervention data collection.  The purpose of this study was to investigate if the FRIENDS for Life program had an effect on the frequency of self-reported anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization episodes amongst children in Independent school settings.   3.2 Ethics Application and School Inclusion Criteria    Ethical approval from the university Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) and from a large, Independent school district (e.g., nonsecular) was gained in June 2012.  Following ethical approval, principals from eligible elementary schools in the school district were invited to participate.  Eligibility included grade 4 teachers who were trained to administer FRIENDS for Life program and were planning to offer the program during the 2012/2013 academic year.  Further inclusion criteria for schools included English language instruction.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 29	 ?3.3 Recruitment and Incentives   A school package (see Appendix A) outlining the purpose of the study and the time requirement for participating schools was sent (via email) to all eligible schools.  Follow up phone calls were made within one week of the email invitation.  Information in the school package included the possible benefits of the study such as: a reduction in anxiety symptoms, an increase in the awareness of mental health concerns and bullying, and a contribution to the body of knowledge about how to prevent and to improve the problem of bullying and of victimization within schools.    One incentive proposed to each participating school was a complimentary parent education meeting on anxiety prevention for children, to be offered by me and supervised by my research advisor.  As an incentive to the participating students, each classroom was entered in a draw for a pizza party with their class following Time 2 data collection.   3.4 Ethical Concerns  Ethical concerns are of great importance when conducting research with children who are considered a vulnerable population.  An effort was made to ensure that all parents and students understood that participation was voluntary and that no negative consequences would occur should they opt out of the study at any time.  As mental health and victimization may be considered sensitive topics, all efforts were made to offer support for students for whom concerns were raised by the subject matter of the assessment measures.    Teachers were asked to sign the teacher consent form (see Appendix B), outlining their role in the study and establishing them as liaisons to participants and parents before the first data collection.  Participation criteria necessitated active parental consent and student assent.  Teachers distributed the parent consent forms (see Appendix C) to their students and requested 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 30	 ?the forms be returned by a scheduled date.  The researcher collected the forms at the Time 1 assessment.  The participant assent forms (see Appendix D) were distributed before each assessment and were read aloud to the students.  Students who did not receive parental consent or who chose not to give assent to participate in the study and were present during the assessments were given options for alternate activities by their teacher while the measure was being administered.  These options varied depending on the school and on the availability of adult supervision.  Some options included staying in the class and doing artwork, silent reading, or schoolwork.  Some schools offered the option for these students to be supervised in another classroom or in the school library.  There was no evidence of any student being disappointed or feeling left out by not participating in the study. No children chose to opt out of the study.    Students were provided with the ?helpful resources? package (see Appendix I) that served two functions.  First, students were given the opportunity to indicate if they would like to speak to an adult about the content of the assessment by writing their names on the first page and submitting it separately from their assessment.  Any student who indicated s/he would like to speak to an adult at any point during the research study was identified to the school psychologist or school counsellor for further support. Thirty-six children indicated interest in speaking to an adult; all were accommodated.  In schools where a school psychologist or school counsellor was not available, the school principal was informed (n=6).  Second, the package contained a list of resources and ideas students could use to help address problems with bullying, victimization, and anxiety.  This part of the package was separate from any other form and could be kept by all students in the case that they wanted or needed assistance but desired to remain anonymous.  The same form was also sent to parents and made available to teachers and staff.  The helpful 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 31	 ?resources handout was highlighted and explained in front of each class before students began completing assessments.   3.4.1 Confidentiality    To protect anonymity, each child participant was assigned a numerical code for data collection.  A list of participant names and their corresponding numbers was created for each classroom; the participant list was shredded once data collection was completed.  Participants submitted their completed measures with their name on the cover page only.  The researcher matched each measure with their corresponding number and discarded the cover page so that students? measures remained anonymous to the researcher.    Following data collection, the measures were stored in a locked cabinet at the University of British Columbia.  Any results or presentations that arise from this study will not use any names of schools or other identity exposing characteristics.  In this way, participants? and schools? names remain confidential.  Results of the data analysis will be shared upon request with the school district liaison and or participating schools.   3.5 Participants  Eighteen Independent schools were contacted and invited to participate in the study.  Of the eighteen schools that were contacted, seven school principals and ten teachers (classrooms) agreed to participate in the study (38.8%).  Three schools each included two Grade 4 classrooms; four schools included one classroom.  Five classes were randomly selected to participate in the active intervention group, and 5 classrooms made up the wait-list control group.    All students (N = 287) in each of the participating classrooms (N = 10) were asked to participate in data collection.  Of the students who were given parental consent and gave assent at Time 1 (108 males, 49.8% and 109 females, 50.2%), 213 students completed the measures, 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 32	 ?and at Time 2, 208 students completed the measures (2.6% attrition). Attrition in this study was expected due to data collection in a school setting.  Reasons for attrition varied from a change in academic schedule, absence and school withdrawal.  A total of 205 measures were analyzed at both data collection time points (3.8% attrition).  The intervention, consisting of 10 lessons, was intended to be completed in ten weeks.  No teacher was able to complete the program in ten weeks.  Of the 5 classes in the active treatment group, one teacher reported completing the entire 10 lesson program (20%), two reported completing 9 of 10 (40%) lessons, and 2 reported completing 6 of 10 (40%) lessons by the Time 2 data collection in March.  All classes? results were included in the findings, as participation in content of the FRIENDS for Life Lessons 1-6 was deemed sufficient for research.  The content in the first six lessons taught the majority of the skills addressing the outcomes of the program, and lessons 7, 8, and 9 reviewed previous lessons and activities.  Lesson 10 is a celebration at completing the program, with no active material or review content.   3.6  Procedure  The research measured children?s perceptions of victimization, and anxiety symptoms. Data were collected pre-program at Time 1 in October 2012, and post-program at Time 2 in March 2013.  Schools, rather than classes, were randomly assigned to the active intervention or waitlist control group.  Schools were randomly assigned to either the active intervention group (Group 1) and agreed to deliver the FRIENDS for Life program between October and December 2012, or to the waitlist control condition (Group 2).  The classes/schools assigned to the waitlist control group received the intervention following data collection at Time 2, in the same school year (April to June 2013).  The random assignment of active intervention and waitlist control conditions was done by pulling school names out of a hat and sorting them alternately into two 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 33	 ?piles representing Group 1 and Group 2.   The time commitment to complete assessments for each class was approximately one hour per classroom visit (pre/post-intervention).  All consenting classroom teachers attended a one-day certification training making them eligible to deliver the FRIENDS program, before the study began, and had made arrangements to implement the FRIENDS for Life program in their classes.   The primary researcher administered student-report pencil/paper assessments during two 40-60 minute sessions.  Accommodations for students with barriers to completing the measure were made in collaboration with the classroom teacher.  One student had a learning disability, which necessitated a one-on-one aid to help the student complete the measure.  An identical PowerPoint version of the measures was projected simultaneously with the verbal announcement of the questions in order to help guide students.   3.7 Measures 3.7.1 Bullying Survey    The Bullying Survey (Hymel, 2011; see Appendix E) is a brief, student self-report on frequency of bullying and victimization which asks students to report their experience of being victimized or incidences of victimization they have witnessed.  It was developed at the University of British Columbia under the direction of Dr. Shelley Hymel as a part of a larger battery of assessments called the ?Survey of School Experiences.? The measure is adapted from the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996), incorporating the frequency of experiencing cyberbullying.  The measure shows high internal consistency (? = .91) as found when embedded within the original battery  (Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, & Waterhouse, 2011).  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 34	 ?Other psychometric properties and the measure?s validity are in progress of being developed and published.  Dr. Hymel gave permission for her adapted measure to be used as a part of this investigation.    In keeping with recommendations made by Vaillancourt et al. (2008), the Bully Survey began with a definition of the term bullying.  The definition was read to the students out loud and stated: ?There are lots of different ways to bully someone, but a bully wants to hurt the other person (it?s not an accident), and does so repeatedly and unfairly (bullies have some advantage over the victim).  Sometimes a group of students will bully another student.  Bullying takes many forms: physical, verbal, social and cyber.? Then the measure prompted the students to ?Think about this school year when you answer these questions about bullying?.  The measure consists of 15 items which ask about frequency of being a victim, bystander and bully (in this order) for each of the four forms of bullying described: physical, verbal, social, and cyber.  For example: ?How often have you been socially bullied?? Written instructions prompts the students to fill in the circle that best matches their experience for each item.  Children are asked to rate responses on a five point Likert scale ranging from (1) Never, (2) Once or a few times, (3) Every Month, (4) Every Week, (5) Several Times a Week.  Embedded in the questions are examples of bullying behaviours that pertain to the type of bullying being asked about.  For example: ?How often have you been physically bullied? Examples: hit, kicked punched, property damaged or stolen.? The definition of bullying and examples are presented in a third format in an information box after the first three questions that the administrator reads allowed after each question. 3.7.2  Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS)   The Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS; Spence, 1994; see Appendix F) is a brief student self-report measure used to assess severity of anxiety in children.  The SCAS is widely 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 35	 ?used in clinical assessments.  The SCAS consists of 44 items.  There are 8 subscales, which address the following domains of anxiety: generalized anxiety (GAD), panic/agoraphobia, social phobia (SoP), separation anxiety (SAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and physical injury fears.  Six items in the measure are positively worded to reduce negative response bias.   Psychometric properties of this measure are provided in 2 papers (Spence, 1998; Spence et al., 2003).  The normative sample for the development of the SCAS consisted of 4,916 children and adolescents (Spence, 1998).  Internal consistency (reliability) is reported for the total score as extremely high (Cronbach ? = .93).  Internal consistency of the subscales was reported as adequate being .74 for separation anxiety, .76 for obsessive compulsive disorder, .82 for panic/agoraphobia, .77 for generalized anxiety, .60 for physical injury fears, and .74 for social phobia.  The total score and the social phobia subscale were used in this study.  Test-retest reliability after 6 months for a sample of 344 children aged 8-12 years old is reported (Spence, 1998) at .60 for the total score.  A 12-week test-retest reliability co-efficient of .63 (total score) was found for 362 13 and 14 year olds.  Girls tend to score higher than boys, and for both boys and girls, total scores decreased with age.  The total score and the social phobia subscale was used in this study.   3.7.3  FRIENDS Fidelity Checklists and Treatment Fidelity Contact   Teachers were asked to rate treatment fidelity in two ways.  The first was through self-report FRIENDS fidelity checklist addressing program outcomes and learning, and facilitator skills (see Appendix J; Miller et al., 2011).  Questions regarding lesson outcomes, activities, amounts of time for each lesson, and supplementary resources used for each lesson were reported.  These checklists allowed the researcher to examine treatment fidelity and exposure to the content of the program.  The second fidelity check was through intermittent emails from the researcher to 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 36	 ?each teacher in the active intervention group.  The primary investigator sent three emails to each teacher in the active intervention group starting in the 2nd week of program implementation.  Emails addressed concerns the teachers may have had and asked for an update on progress in the program (i.e., which lesson they were currently teaching).  These emails were used to assess if the program was being taught at the same pace and according to the agreed upon schedule.  3.7.3.1      Treatment fidelity    Teachers in the intervention group were given a treatment fidelity checklist to document objectives met at the end of each lesson completed of the FRIENDS for Life program.  Items on the checklist followed the sequence of activities for each lesson such as review activities, lesson objectives, supplemental activities (songs, stories, activities from Teacher Resource Kit), the length of time in number of sessions, and the total minutes to complete the lesson.    Program completion was measured by calculating the percentage of lessons completed of the entire program.  None of the teachers was able to report completing the program by December 2013 (0%) as had been originally set out by the study?s design.  Of the five classes in the active treatment group, one teacher reported completing the program (20%), two reported completing nine of ten lessons (40%), and two reported completing six of ten lessons (40%) by the Time 2 data collection in March.  All classes? results were included in the findings, as participation in content of the FRIENDS for Life lessons one through six was deemed sufficient for research.  However, due to the fact that not all classes finished the FRIENDS program by Time 2, results of the analysis must be interpreted with caution.  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 37	 ? The percentage of compliance to the number of lesson objectives completed was also measured.  Percent compliance for all teachers regardless of degree of program completion ranged from 80% to 100%.  3.8  Analytic Strategy   This study studied the effect of treatment and time on two dependent variables of interest: self-reported anxiety symptoms and frequency of victimization episodes in a group of 205 children assigned to intervention or control.  This analytic design examined both between and within group factors.  A three-way (2x2x2) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with two between subject factors (treatment and sex, each with two levels) and one within subject factor (time, two levels), was used to test the effect of the treatment over time and across sex.  The between groups factors were intervention (two levels; treatment or no treatment) and sex (male or female).  Time was a within group factor with two levels (pre-intervention and post-intervention).  Main effects and interactions were tested.  A Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used as a corrected criterion for statistical significance in order to reduce the chance of making a Type 1 error.  The preliminary power analysis suggested that with a sample size of 160, a small (f = 0.25) effect size with a power of approximately 0.80 could be detected.  A total sample of 205 participants? completed measures was used for the analysis.    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 38	 ?Chapter 4: Results  4.1  Overview of the Analyses  A three way (2 x 2 x 2) repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess data at two time points, between an active intervention and a waitlist control group, in a sample of 205 Independent school children.  Two between subject factors and one within subject factor was used to test the effect of the treatment over time and across sex.  The between groups factors were intervention (treatment/no treatment) and sex (male/female).  Time was the within group factor with two levels (pre-intervention/post-intervention).  The dependent variables assessed in this study were self-reported anxiety symptoms and frequency of victimization.    Due to strong positive skew of the data at Time 1 and Time 2, the data were transformed using a square root transformation for the anxiety symptoms variable, and a logarithmic transformation for the frequency of victimization episodes variable. The original and transformed data were analyzed.  Data for this study were analyzed using IBM?s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. Pearson correlational analyses were used to investigate the significance of correlations between anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization at Time 1 and 2.   4.2 Preliminary Analysis  4.2.1  Participant Data   	 ? In order to complete the repeated measures ANOVA on the dependent variables, only participants who had completed the measures from Time 1 and Time 2 data collection were used. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 39	 ?Eight participants did not complete both measures, resulting in 205 participants.  Reasons for student attrition and the number of participants are indicated in the enrollment flow chart below (See Figure 1).    Figure 1  Enrollment flow chart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	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 40	 ?4.2.2  Internal Consistency of Measurement Scales  All Cronbach alpha coefficients were acceptable on the anxiety measure (SCAS) and the Victimization measure at both time points: Time 1, SCAS (.927), Bullying Survey Victimization subscale (.699); Time 2, SCAS (.781), Bullying Survey Victimization subscale (.749).  4.3  Descriptive Statistics  4.3.1  Student Demographic Data  Participants were asked to report demographic data at Time 1.  Data including participant sex, age, length of time living in Canada, and use of English in the family home are displayed in Table 1. The sample is composed equally of boys and girls, average age 9, having lived in Canada for a majority of their lives, and the majority speaks English as their primary language. Demographic Characteristic     Sex          n         % Male  108 49.8% Female  109 50.2% Length of time in Canada  Less than 2 years 5 2.3% 2-4 years  10 4.6% More than 4 years 202 93.1% English as primary language  Yes  159 73.3% No  58 26.7% Age   8  54 24.9% 9  161 74.2% 10  2 0.9%  Table 1 Frequency and percentages of student demographic data at Time 1 4.3.2  Description of Means and Standard Deviation  Descriptive statistics were gathered to examine the means and the standard deviations of each of the dependent variables at Time 1 and 2, and can be seen in Table 4 and 5 below.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 41	 ? 4.3.3  Prevalence of Anxiety Symptoms  The percentage of participants who reported anxiety symptoms at normal, elevated, and clinical levels at Time 1 and 2 are reported below in Table 2. Cut off points for normal, elevated, and clinical levels of anxiety symptoms were based on t-scores established by the author of the SCAS measure (Spence, 1998), who notes that the SCAS can be used as an investigative measure but it is not recommended to be used as a diagnostic tool.  The percentage of students in the total sample who reported anxiety symptoms at an elevated level (Time 1, 9%; Time 2, 10%) is consistent with research (Chavira et al., 2004), which suggests 10% to 20% of children report distressing levels of anxiety. The percentage of self-reported anxiety symptoms at a clinical level (Time 1, 11%; Time 2, 10%) is consistent with research (Barrett, 2004; Bernstein & Borchardt, 1991), which suggests varying prevalence rates of diagnosed childhood anxiety disorders, 8% to 15% respectively.   SCAS (Time1)  SCAS (Time2)  Time 1 n  Normal Elevated Clinical  Time 2 n  Normal Elevated Clinical  n  n % n % n %  n  n % n % n % Active Intervention 129  101 78% 12 9% 16 12%  124  99 80% 14 11% 11 9% Male 62  50 81% 5 8% 7 11%  59  46 78% 9 15% 4 7% Female 67  51 76% 7 10% 9 13%  65  53 82% 5 8% 7 11% Waitlist control 85  71 84% 7 8% 7 8%  84  67 80% 7 8% 10 12% Male 44  37 84% 5 11% 2 5%  44  34 77% 4 9% 6 14% Female 41  34 83% 2 5% 5 12%  40  33 83% 3 8% 4 10% Sample Total 214  172 80% 19 9% 23 11%  208  166 80% 21 10% 21 10% Table 2 Sample size and percentage of children with normal, elevated, and clinical anxiety symptom levels on the Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) for the independent variables of treatment and sex. Time 1 and Time 2    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 42	 ?4.3.4  Frequency of victimization    The percentage of participants who reported being victimized are reported below in Table 3 at Time 1 and 2.  The percentage of self-reported victimization at Time 2 in this study appear to be consistent with the Canadian children?s self-reported victimization percentages published by the World Health Organization, in the Health Behaviours in School-Aged Children Survey (Craig & Yossi, 2004).  In this study, the percentage of students who reported being victimized once or a few times in the current school year at Time 2 (March 2012) was 42.4%, whereas the Canadian national average found in the World Health Organization survey for children who have been bullied at least once in the previous couple of months was 41.3%.   Table 3 Percent frequency of endorsed answers for Bully Survey Victimization subscale. Time 1 and 2  Time 1 and 2 combined Average Percent Participants Endorsed AnswersTime 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2% % % % % % % % % %How often have you been bullied? Male 65.7 36.1 24.1 43.5 2.8 9.3 1.9 1.9 2.8 4.6Female 66.1 33.9 26.6 41.3 0 8.3 1.8 7.3 4.6 5.5Sample Average 65.9 35 25.3 42.4 1.4 8.8 1.8 4.6 3.7 5.1How often have you been physically bullied?Male 59.3 43.5 35.2 40.7 0.9 7.4 0.9 2.8 0.9 0.9Female 60.6 51.4 34.9 36.7 1.8 3.7 0.9 3.7 0.9 0.9Sample Average 59.9 47.5 35 38.7 1.4 5.5 0.9 3.2 0.9 0.9How often have you been verbally bullied?Male 50.9 31.5 29.6 42.6 8.3 7.4 5.6 6.5 2.8 7.4Female 43.1 28.4 45 47.7 4.6 5.5 3.7 11 2.8 3.7Sample Average 47 30 37.3 45.2 6.5 6.5 4.6 8.8 2.8 5.5How often have you been socially bullied?Male 55.6 46.3 27.8 35.2 3.7 9.3 5.6 1.9 4.6 2.8Female 45 37.6 43.1 36.7 4.6 11.9 2.8 4.6 3.7 5.5Sample Average 50.2 41.9 35.5 35.9 4.1 10.6 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1How often have you been cyber-bullied? Male 85.2 82.4 10.2 11.1 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 0Female 95.4 86.2 3.7 7.3 0 1.8 0 0 0 0.9Sample Average 90.3 84.3 6.9 9.2 0 1.8 0.9 0 0 0.5Once or a Few TimesNever Every Month Every Week Several Times a Week	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 43	 ?4.4  ANOVA  4.4.1  Assumptions of ANOVA  Not all assumptions of the ANOVA were met.  Scores of the dependent variables in this study were not normally distributed.  Due to the degree of skewness and kurtosis for each of the dependent variables, transformations of the variables were necessary in order to meet this assumption and to perform the repeated measures ANOVA.  The assumption of homogeneity of variance using Levene?s test was met for all dependent variables at both time points using the transformed data.  4.4.2  Research question   Two mixed between-within subjects analyses of variance were conducted. The first ANOVA was conducted to assess the impact of the FRIENDS for Life program on participants? scores on their self-reported level of anxiety symptoms across two time points. The second ANOVA was conducted to assess the impact of the FRIENDS for Life program on participants? scores on the frequency of victimization subscale of the Bullying Survey across two time points.   4.4.3  ANOVA for Anxiety Symptoms    Mean levels of anxiety symptoms (see Table 2) were calculated for each data point, treatment condition (active intervention/waitlist control), and sex (male/female). A main effect for sex was found: F(1, 201) = 25.775, p < .025 which accounted for 11.4 percent of the between subjects variance. No other statistically significant main effects or interactions were found.  No main effect for time was found as a result of this analysis. The treatment by gender interaction was not found to be significant, indicating that the treatment did not have a significantly different 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 44	 ?effect on males versus females. The three-way interaction, treatment group by time by gender, was not statistically significant.    Analysis of the within subjects variable sex revealed that females (Tx Time 1, M= 36.79, SD= 17.97; Tx Time 2, M= 37.91, SD= 18.01; Control Time 1, M= 38.88, SD= 17.49; Control Time 2, M= 33.95, SD= 18.95) reported significantly more anxiety symptoms than males (Tx Time 1, M= 26.79, SD= 17.12; Tx Time 2, M= 27.31, SD= 19.31; Control Time 1, M= 26.16, SD= 15.18; Control Time 2, M= 27.66, SD= 21.51) reported at both time points and in both treatment groups (see Figure 2 and Table 4).  This finding is consistent with extant literature.           ** p < .01, two-tailed.    Figure 2.  SCAS estimated marginal mean total anxiety scores of males and females across two assessment periods     **	 ? **	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 45	 ?  SCAS (Time1)   SCAS (Time2)     M SD   M SD n Active Intervention 31.73 18.13  32.08 17.11 123 Male 26.79 17.12  27.31 19.31 58 Female 36.29** 17.97  37.91** 18.01 65 Waitlist control 31.32 17.11  30.65 20.46 82 Male 26.16 15.18  27.66 21.51 43 Female 38.88** 17.49  33.95** 18.95 39 Sample Total 31.57 17.7   31.97 19.76 205 *p < .05, two-tailed.  **p < .01, two-tailed. Table 4 Sample size, mean and standard deviation of the Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) subscale for the independent variables of treatment and sex  4.4.4  ANOVA for Frequency of Victimization Episodes Results of the ANOVA on the frequency of victimization variable revealed that one main effect and one interaction effect were statistically significant. No other statistically significant main effects or interactions were found. A main effect for time was found: Wilks? ? = .848, F (1, 201) = 35.997, p = .000, partial ?2 = .152.  The main effect of time indicated that there was a significant change in children?s perception of how frequently they were victimized throughout the school year, regardless of treatment condition.  Further analysis of the within subjects variable time resulted in a significant increase in self-reported victimization between Time 1 and 2 (see Figure 5).  Participants reported a significant increase in victimization at Time 2 compared to Time 1 for both active intervention Time 2  (M= 1.73, SD= .657) compared to Time 1 (M= 1.48, SD= .583), t(122)= -4.722, p = .000 ) and waitlist control conditions Time 2  (M= 1.79, SD= .710) compared to Time 1 (M= 1.55, SD= .563), t(81)= -3.401, p = .001).  A three-way interaction, Time X Treatment group X Gender, was found upon analysis of the transformed data.  As the overall F-test was significant, Wilks? ? = .977, F (1, 201) = 4.767, p = .030, partial ?2 = .023, paired samples T-tests for the three-way interaction were 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 46	 ?conducted on the untransformed data. Significant mean differences in the waitlist control condition for males and females were found for frequency of victimization (see Table 5). This indicated that both males? and females? reports of frequency of victimization episodes in the control condition increased significantly between Time 1 and Time 2: Males at T1  (M= 1.51, SD= .608), Males at T2 (M= 1.80, SD= .731), t(42)= -2.644. Females at T1 (M= 1.59, SD= .513) Females at T2 (M= 1.77, SD= .695), t(38)= -2.128, p = .040. Females in the intervention condition also posted significantly higher scores from Time 1 to Time 2. Victimization scores reported by females in the intervention condition at T2 (M= 1.80, SD= .669) are significantly higher than those reported by females at T1 (M= 1.46, SD= .579) t(64)= -5.793, p = .000 (see Figure3). Only males in the intervention condition did not increase on mean scores of self-reported victimization: Time 1 (M= 1.51, SD= .591), Time 2 (M= 1.66, SD= .640), t(57)= -1.653, p = .104 (see Figure 4).     Bully Survey (Time 1)   Bully Survey (Time 2)    M SD   M SD n Active Intervention 1.48 0.578  1.73 0.654 123 Male 1.51 0.584  1.66 0.635 58 Female 1.46 0.577  1.8** 0.669 65 Waitlist control 1.56 0.566  1.79 0.704 82 Male  1.54 0.623  1.8** 0.725 43 Female  1.59 0.505  1.77* 0.688 39 Sample Total 1.51 0.57   1.75 0.67 182 *p < .05, two-tailed.  **p < .01, two-tailed. Table 5. Sample size, mean and standard deviation of the Bullying Survey Victimization subscale for the independent variables of treatment and sex      	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 47	 ?          ** p < .01  Figure 3.  Bullying Survey ? Frequency of Victimization subscale estimated marginal mean Total Victimization scores of females across two assessment periods         ** p < .01  Figure 4.  Bullying Survey ? Frequency of Victimization subscale estimated marginal mean Total Victimization scores of males across two assessment periods    **	 ?**	 ?**	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Experimental	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Waitlist	 ?control	 ?Estimated	 ?Marginal	 ?Means	 ?of	 ?Frequency	 ?of	 ?Victimization,	 ?Females	 ?Estimated	 ?Marginal	 ?Means	 ?of	 ?Frequency	 ?of	 ?Victimization,	 ?Males	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Experimental	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Waitlist	 ?control	 ?Time	 ?Time	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 48	 ?                   ** p < .01, two-tailed   Figure 5.  Bullying Survey ? Frequency of Victimization subscale estimated marginal mean total victimization scores of total sample (N=205) across two assessment periods  4.5  Correlations of Measurement Subscales  The significance of correlations, between anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization at Time 1 and Time 2 were investigated using Pearson correlational calculations (two-tailed) in order to address the third hypothesis in this study (see Table 6).    Pearson correlation calculations were used to compare the Victimization subscale on the Bully Survey, with the SCAS. Correlation coefficients were interpreted following Cohen?s (as cited in Pallant, 2010, p. 134) guidelines.  At Time 1, a small but statistically significant Pearson correlation coefficient was found between the SCAS total score and the Bully Survey victimization subscale, r = .247, p < .01, two-tailed.  At Time 2, a medium positive statistically significant Pearson correlation coefficient existed between the SCAS total score and the Bully Survey victimization subscale, r = .325, p < .01, two-tailed. Thus, at Time 1 and Time 2, for students in the active condition, the reports of anxiety symptoms were positively and **	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 49	 ?significantly correlated to student reports of victimization episodes.  These coefficients indicate that there was a small but significant correlation between child-reported levels of anxiety symptoms and child-reported frequency of victimization episodes at each of the two assessment periods.  Subscale (Transformation) 1 2 3 4 1 SCAS Total Anxiety T1 (Square Root) 1    2 SCAS Total Anxiety T2 (Square Root) .599** 1   3 Bully Survey - Victimization - T1 (Log) .247** .158* 1  4 Bully Survey - Victimization - T2 (Log) .178* .325** .554** 1  Note: T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.      ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).    Table 6. Pearson Correlations of Measurement Subscales.  Time 1 and 2.              	 ? 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 50	 ?Chapter 5: Discussion  This chapter reviews the research problem of investigating change in the level of self-reported anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization episodes following a social emotional learning program, summarizes the results of this randomized controlled trial conducted in an independent school setting, and discusses the practical implications of the findings for educational practice.  Within this chapter, there will also be a discussion on the strengths and limitations of the study, the impact on the results, and suggestions for further research.   5.1 Statement of the Problem   The FRIENDS for Life program is a Ministry of Education-endorsed social emotional learning program specifically targeted at helping children with anxiety symptoms in schools.  Due to its widespread use in Western Canada, program outcomes were evaluated.  The limited empirical evidence to support the practice of FRIENDS for Life in this region encouraged more studies of the program?s ability to produce the outcomes it claims, as well as to understand its potential to produce other positive, prosocial outcomes.  In particular, there has been no research to examine the effect the FRIENDS for Life program may have on the frequency of peer victimization in Independent schools.    Both empirical research (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O?Brennan, Gulemetova, & Henderson, 2011) and direct observation demonstrate that schools and teachers have limited effective means to enable children who participate in bullying and children who perceive themselves as victims to overcome the bully-victim cycle.  Initial research (Olweus, 1991; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009) confirmed bullying and victimization are widespread problems amongst school-age children, with both short- and long-term consequences for the bully, victim, bystanders, and 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 51	 ?classrooms or communities in which the bullying occurs.  Researchers (Hodges et al., 1999; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010) have found that, among other consequences, being bullied may predict anxiety symptoms, and children who suffer from elevated anxiety symptoms are known to have difficulty with social relationships (Carlisle & Rofes, 2007; Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, L?sel, & Loeber, 2011; Verduin & Kendall, 2008;).  Limited research has revealed that social-emotional skills may have significant associations with the emotional and psychological needs of victimized children (Andreou, 2001).   5.2 Hypothesis Testing   The research sought to answer the question of what effect the implementation of the FRIENDS for Life program may have on children?s levels of anxiety symptoms and their perceptions of the frequency at which they experience victimization due to bullying.  The first hypothesis of this study was that following participation in the FRIENDS for Life program, participants would report a significantly lower level of anxiety symptoms as compared with children who did not participate in the program.  Based on the statistical analysis conducted in this study, no significant changes in self-report anxiety symptoms were found in either the treatment group or in the control condition. The FRIENDS for Life program did not significantly impact the level of anxiety symptoms in the intervention group.    The second hypothesis of this study was that following participation in the FRIENDS for Life program, participants would report significantly less victimization as compared with children who did not participate in the program.  Based on the statistical analysis conducted in this study, no significant decreases in self-report victimization were found in either the treatment group or in the control condition. The FRIENDS for Life program did not significantly impact the frequency of victimization by girls (only) in the intervention condition.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 52	 ? Results of the repeated measures ANOVA on the transformed data revealed a three-way interaction between time, sex and treatment. This interaction indicated that the treatment affected male participants differently from female participants; specifically, it revealed that the program had a mitigating effect on reported victimization by males.  Self-reported frequency of victimization scores among females in the control condition and in the treatment condition significantly increased over time, suggesting that the program had no effect on female participants? perceptions of how frequently they are victimized.  Self-reported frequency of victimization scores for male students in the treatment condition did not significantly change across time, whereas male scores in the control condition increased significantly across time.  Participation in the program did not reduce the frequency of victimization for males as hoped; however, male program participants had stable levels (no increase or decrease reported) of victimization over time compared to their male counterparts in the wait-list control condition, whose scores on the victimization measure significantly increased over time.  The third hypothesis investigated the correlation between self-reported anxiety symptoms and the frequency of victimization at Time 1 and Time 2. Pearson correlation coefficients at both Time 1 and Time 2 indicated that a positive correlation existed between the frequency of victimization and the degree of anxiety symptoms.  These results indicated that high levels of anxiety symptoms for children corresponded to high levels of self-reported frequency of victimization amongst all children in this study.   5.3 Discussion  It was expected that if the participants in the FRIENDS for Life program posted decreases in anxiety symptoms, the program might also influence and lower the frequency of victimization episodes. No significant effects of the program were found on self-reported anxiety levels of 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 53	 ?children in the treatment program. As anxiety levels did not change as a result of the program in this study, it is not a surprise that the frequency of victimization also did not change as a result of the program.  A significant main effect for time was found for self-reported frequency of victimization in both conditions.  Participants from both the treatment and control conditions reported more victimization at post-program data collection as compared with the pre-program data collection time point.  Significant increases in victimization were reported by all girls, and by boys in the control condition. Some proposed reasons for this finding are reflected in research on school-based interventions that describe effective attributes of bullying prevention programs (Cross et al., 2008).  Firstly, some necessary aspects of successful bullying prevention and intervention programs are that they be whole school-, classroom-, and family-based.  Additionally, long-term or two-year interventions were found to be more effective than short-term programs.  The FRIENDS program is designed to be a ten-week, universal, classroom-based intervention, which does not meet the standard for model bully prevention programming as outlined by the characteristics above, nor does it target bullying prevention.  The FRIENDS program included home activities as a part of its weekly sessions; 60% of teachers assigned these activities 65% of the time.  This particular study of the implementation of the FRIENDS program cannot claim to have been endorsed as a family-based intervention across all classrooms, which is an attribute outlined as necessary for an effective bullying intervention.  Further, the FRIENDS program is classroom-based and is not designed for school-wide implementation.   The data suggest that in this sample of children, very little bullying or victimization was reported in early October, self-reported victimization increased significantly at the Time 2 data collection in early March, and no significant changes to anxiety scores occurred between Time 1 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 54	 ?and 2.  The significant increase in victimization scores by all girls and by boys in the control condition, between Time 1 and Time 2 in this study is consistent with research by Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996), who also found an increase in victimization scores from fall to spring in the same academic year amongst children.  In their study, the increase in victimization reports was associated with increased loneliness and decreased school affection in children?s self-reports.  These concurrent findings provided support for the ?onset hypothesis? Kochenderfer-Ladd and Wardrop (2001) propose about the role of timing of victimization.  The onset hypothesis suggests that maladjustment symptoms (e.g., loneliness, or anxiety symptoms) increase as children move from experiencing little or no victimization to experiencing an increase in victimization.  In the present study, there is a positive correlation between victimization episodes and anxiety symptoms, suggesting that when higher levels of anxiety symptoms are present, higher frequency of victimization might be found at a given time point. The pattern outlined by the onset hypothesis (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop 2001) that suggests that an increase in anxiety symptoms would be found as an increase in victimization episodes occurred over time, does not coincide with the findings of this study because anxiety scores do not significantly increase at Time 2 compared to Time 1. However, the low magnitude positive correlation at Time 1, and the medium magnitude positive correlation at Time 2, between anxiety and victimization scores support the suggested direction of the onset hypothesis, in that these results show a trend of higher levels of anxiety symptoms corresponding to higher levels of victimization.   Another possible explanation for the increase in the frequency of victimization might be an increased awareness of victimization.  Students in both the treatment and control groups were exposed to the definition of bullying by the researcher, three times during the school year.  This 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 55	 ?cumulative exposure may have increased awareness and understanding of victimization, and thus may have increased the students? ability to recognize the victimization they were experiencing.  This may have contributed to the overall increases in victimization reported and detected at the Time 2 data collection for both the treatment and control groups. 5.4  Strengths  The first strength of this study is that it incorporates a waitlist control group.  The control group addresses the main threat of student maturation.  As participants were similar in age (eight to ten years old), it was expected that they would mature at approximately the same pace (Craig, 1998).  It was expected that any of the similarities found between groups could be attributed to maturation, whereas any significant differences found between groups could have been treated as effects of the intervention.  Although significant differences were found for frequency of victimization episodes over time, these differences could not be attributed to the intervention program as they were found in both the treatment and control conditions.  Boys in the intervention condition were the only participants whose reports of victimization remained stable, suggesting that in this study the program helped to modestly truncate the trajectory of increased victimization episodes for this sample of male program participants. Second, the classes in the treatment and control groups were cluster randomized.  Random assignment of participants or of a larger sample size of classes is necessary to ensure the validity of results and to increase the generalizability of the results to similar populations. The benefit of cluster randomization in this study is therefore limited as only 10 classes were used for the randomization and a larger sample size of classes would be necessary to claim the full benefits of randomization in this study design. Third, the study incorporates two measures, which allow for a broader investigation into the participants? self-perceptions of two different constructs.  Fourth, a substantially large population 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 56	 ?was recruited (N = 205) and analyzed. Lastly, this study was administered in an Independent school setting (e.g., nonsecular, tuition payments), which differs from the more commonly researched public school setting.  5.5 Limitations  The most significant limitation of this study may have been program fidelity and completion, which appeared to be a challenge due to time constraints within a school setting.  None of the participating classes were able to finish the FRIENDS for Life program in its entirety according to the ten-week timeline set out by the program guidelines. While fidelity to the content of the program was high for all classes, three out of five classes in the intervention group completed the program content in twenty weeks rather than the suggested ten weeks.   A threat to internal validity of the study is social desirability.  Some participants may have endorsed answers in the way they thought others in their class would accept, rather than how they truly felt, or participants may not have believed that their participation was important compared to their classmates.  This threat was addressed in two ways.  First, participants were assured of confidentiality.  Second, students were told, at the beginning of each data collection visit, how participating as honestly as possible in this survey could have an important impact on the quality of the results and, in turn, could help make their schools happier places for all students.   An additional limitation posed by the design of the study was the repeated sittings for students to complete the same self-report assessment.  This may have provided participants with an opportunity to communicate with one another between tests and to be influenced by their peers to answer items in a certain way.  Students may have not felt comfortable reporting their 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 57	 ?own victimization or bullying behaviour after speaking about the measure with their peers or after completing the survey in close proximity to their peers.  One way to alleviate this threat was to ensure that students? personal space during the survey was well-guarded from their peers and that their responses were fully confidential. 5.6 Suggestions for Future Research  The present study measured changes over six months of the school year.  Longer-term studies to assess program outcomes could add to research and could assist educators and school counsellors to determine whether to implement the FRIENDS for Life program in their respective schools.  If provisions were made for longer-term studies, challenges such as program completion may still pose difficulty for participating classes; however, the longer-term study designs may be more sensitive to assessing change between groups over time.  The present study assessed students between the ages of 8 and 10 years old for the programs effect on the frequency of peer victimization.  Research involving diverse informants (e.g., teachers, parents) are recommended for future investigation.  Although student reports are necessary to understand student experiences, results may be different if data were collected from teachers in schools and from parents.    There is consensus in the literature that victims of bullying are likely to experience varying levels of internalizing problems such as anxiety and social phobia symptoms (La Greca & Harrison 2005; Storch, Zelman, Sweekney, Danner, & Dove, 2002; Swearer et al., 2011).  The correlations found in this study between student-reported victimization, anxiety, and social phobia symptoms support the conclusion that internalizing emotional symptoms are associated with victimization.  The coexistence of internalizing mental health concerns and the experience 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 58	 ?of victimization points towards the importance of including components that measure comorbidity of mental health issues and victimization in future research of intervention programming for both bullying and anxiety.  More research in this area would contribute to the development of treatments that simultaneously address internalizing mental health issues, such as anxiety symptoms, and target children who are involved in victimization.  Development of such programs, and further research on existing programs, is necessary to help address the comorbidity of these issues for children (Swearer et al.,  2011).    Quantitative data taken from the sample population is a powerful method to gain evidence supporting the use of the program.  Results of this and other quantitative studies assessing social emotional learning programs may also be enhanced through the inclusion of qualitative data taken from participants of the program.  Qualitative data regarding participants? experiences applying the skills learned as a result of the time spent in the program could provide valuable insights for its implementation in schools.    The findings of this study point to a potential difference in the way male and female students cope with, recognize, or report their experiences with victimization.  Additional research regarding sex-specific associations to the various forms of bullying and victimization would continue to add value to understanding and refining appropriate prevention models.   5.7 Conclusion  At the outset of this study, it was predicted that participation in the FRIENDS for Life program would contribute to decreased levels of anxiety symptoms and fewer victimization episodes due to the social-emotional skills, pro-social skills, and anxiety-coping skills taught during the program lessons. No effects of the program were found upon measuring the two 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 59	 ?dependent variables of this study (i.e., anxiety symptoms and frequency of victimization).  When boys? scores were analyzed separately, results revealed that reports of the frequency of victimization stabilized in the intervention group and significantly increased in the control condition. Therefore, in this study, with this sample of children, boys in the intervention condition were the only children who maintained their low level of self-reported victimization as compared with girls in both conditions and boys in the control condition who reported an increase in victimization scores.	 ?As expected, the frequency of victimization scores were positively and significantly correlated with the anxiety symptoms scores at both Time 1 and Time 2.   Several sources of research cited in the literature review maintain that children who perceive themselves to be victims of bullying report higher levels of anxiety (Silverman et al., 1995; Swearer et al., 2011).  In addition, Andreou (2001) found that victimization could be predicted by a deficit in social-emotional and pro-social skills.  Taken together, these indications fueled the investigation into how enhancing children?s pro-social skills and reducing anxiety symptoms may help reduce victimization.  Mixed evidence exists, however, as to whether social-emotional and pro-social skill building is a core and or a necessary facet of bully prevention efforts.  The results of this study are in closer alignment with this more recent research (DeRosier, 2004; Fox & Boulton, 2003; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Salmivalli, 2009), which has shown support for a more comprehensive and overt approach to bullying prevention and intervention.  Children may need more supports such as assertive assistance from peers and a school climate that explicitly counters bullying behaviour to help stop victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Salmivalli, 2009).    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 60	 ? If pro-social skills are learned, reinforced, and are part of a larger set of strategies to build a school-wide climate that values relationships between all children (Smith, 2008), newly learned and applied pro-social behaviours may serve to help reduce bullying interactions.  Further research of the relationship between social-emotional learning, pro-social skills training and victimization is thus merited.  Moreover, the relationship between internalizing mental health symptoms and victimization exists (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Nishina et al., 2005) and further research on this relationship would continue to provide important insights for the development of more effective approaches to address the concern of both internalizing distress and victimization due to bullying in our schools and amongst our children.  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 61	 ?References  American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.   Andreou, E. (2001). Bully/victim problems and their association with coping behaviour in conflictual peer interactions among school-age children. Educational Psychology, 21, 59?66. doi:10.1080/01443410020019830 Andreou, E., & Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of academic and social cognition in behavior in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24, 27?41. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000146421 Angold, A., Costello, E., & Erkanli, A., (1999). Comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry, 40, 57?87.  doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00424 Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291?322. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291 Asarnow, J. R., & Callan, J. W. (1985) Boys with peer adjustment problems: Social cognitive processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 80?87.  doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.1.80 Barrett P. M., Duffy A. L., Dadds M. R., & Rapee R. M. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of anxiety disorders in children: Long-term (6-year) follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 69, 135?41. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.69.1.135 Barrett, P. M. (1998). Evaluation of cognitive-behavioural group treatments for childhood anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 459?468.  doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2704_10  Barrett, P. M. (2004). FRIENDS for Life group leaders manual (Canadian ed.). Victoria, Canada: 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 62	 ?Queen?s Press.  Barrett, P. M., Farrell, L. J., Ollendick, T. H., & Dadds, M. (2006). Long-term outcomes of an Australian universal prevention trial of anxiety and depression symptoms in children and youth: An evaluation of the FRIENDS Program. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 403?411. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3503_5 Batsche, G. M. (1997). Bullying. In G. G. Bear, K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Children?s needs II: Development, problems, and alternatives (pp. 171?179). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Beautrais, A. L., Joyce, P. R., Mulder, R. T., & Fergusson, D. M. (1996). Prevalence and comorbidity of mental disorders in persons making serious suicide attempts: A case-control study. The American Journal Of Psychiatry, 153, 1009?1014. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/journal.aspx?journalid=13 Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford. Berk, L. E. (2005). Child Development (7 ed.). Boston, MA. Pearson Education.   Bernstein, G. A., & Borchardt, C. M. (1991). Anxiety disorders of childhood and adolescence: A critical review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 519?532. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199107000-00001  Birmaher, B., Ryan, N., Williamson, D., Brent, D., Kaufman, J., Dahl, R., . . . Nelson, B.  (1996). Childhood and adolescent depression: A review of the past 10 years. Part I. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1427?1439. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199611000-00011   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 63	 ?Booth-LaForce, C., Oh, W., Kennedy, A. E., Rubin, K. H., Rose-Krasnor, L, & Laursen  B. (2012). Parent and Peer Links to Trajectories of Anxious Withdrawal From Grades 5 to 8. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41, 138?149.  doi: 10.1080/15374416.2012.651995 Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O?Brennan, L. M., Gulemetova, M., & Henderson, R. D. (2011). Findings from the National Education Association?s nationwide study of bullying: Teachers? and education support professionals? perspectives. Washington, DC: National Education Association. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2008). Safe, caring and orderly schools: A guide. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/sco/resources.htm Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of intercorrelations, gender differences, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185?1229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2008.01184.x Carlisle, N., & Rofes, E. (2007). School bullying: Do adult survivors perceive long-term effects? Traumatology, 13(1), 16?26. doi: 10.1177/1534765607299911 Carney, A. G., & Merrel, K. W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22, 364?382. Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Cowen, K.  (2001). Middle school girls? middle school reports of peer victimization: Concerns, consequences and implications. Professional School Counseling, 5, 138?148.   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 64	 ?Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Suicide prevention: Youth suicide. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pub/youth_suicide.html Chavira, D. A., Stein, M. B., Bailey, K., & Stein, M. T. (2004). Child anxiety in primary care: Prevalent but untreated. Depression and Anxiety, 20, 155?164. doi:10.1002/da.20039  Chavira, D. A., Stein, M. B., Bailey, K., & Stein, M. T. (2004). Child Anxiety in Primary Care: Prevalent But Untreated. Depression And Anxiety, 20(4), 155-164. doi:10.1002/da.20039 Cole, D. A., Peeke, L. G., Martin, J. M., Truglio, R., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1998). A longitudinal look at the relation between depression and anxiety in children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 451?460. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.3.451   Costello, E., Mustillo, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., & Angold, A. (2003). Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 837?844. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837  Craig, M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123?130. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00145-1   Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. (2008). Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective.  In W. M. Craig & D. Pepler (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: an international perspective (pp. xix-xxvi). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.  Craig, W. M., & Yossi, J. (2004) Bullying and fighting. In C. Currie et al. (Eds.), Young people?s health in context: International report from the HBSC 2001/02 survey (Health Policy for Children and Adolescents, No. 4). World Health Organization Regional Office for 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 65	 ?Europe, Copenhagen. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying on the playground and in the classroom [Special issue]. School Psychology International, 21, 22?36.  doi: 10.1177/0143034300211002 Craske, M. G., & Zucker, B. (2002). Prevention of anxiety disorders: A model for intervention. Applied & Preventative Psychology, 10, 155?175. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(01)80012-3. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710?722. Cross, D., Shaw, T., Pearce, N., Erceg, E., Waters, S., Pintabona, Y., & Hall, M. (2008). School-based intervention research to reduce bullying in Australia 1999-2007: What works, what doesn?t, and what?s promising? In D. Pepler & W. M. Craig (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 132-143). Bloomington, IN: Author House. D?Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1982). Social problem-solving in adults. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Academic Press. Dadds, M. R., Spence, S. H., Holland, D. E., Barrett, P. M., & Laurens, K. R. (1997). Prevention and early intervention for anxiety disorders: A controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 627?635. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.65.4.627 Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 73, 173?181. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 66	 ?DeRosier, M. E. (2004). Building relationships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of a school-based social skills group intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 196?201. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_18 Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755-764. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.755 Doll, B., & Swearer, S. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral interventions for participants in bullying and coercion. In R. Mennuti, A. Freeman, & R. Christner (Eds.), Cognitive behavioral interventions in educational settings: A handbook for practice (pp. 183?201). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.  Dweck, C., & Wortman, C. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety, and achievement. In H. Krohne & L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement, stress, and anxiety. New York, NY: Hemisphere.  Elander, J., & Rutter, M. (1996). Use and development of the Rutter Parents' and Teachers' Scales. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 6, 63-78. Erath, S. A., Flanagan, K. S., Bierman, K. L., & Tu, K. M. (2010). Friendships moderate psychosocial maladjustment in socially anxious early adolescents. Journal Of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 15-26. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.005  Erdley, C. A., Nangle, D. W., Newman, J. W., & Carpenter, E. M. (2001). Children?s friendship experiences and psychological adjustment: Theory and research. In D. W. Nangle & C. A. Erdley (Series Eds.) & W. Damon (Volume Ed.), New directions for child and adolescent development: The role of friendship in psychological adjustment (Vol. 91, pp. 5?24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 67	 ?Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O?Moore, M., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Pereira, B., & Smith, P. K. (2003). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71?83. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365?383. Espelage, D. L., Low, S., & De La Rue, L. (2012). Relations between peer victimization subtypes, family violence, and psychological outcomes during adolescence. Psychology of Violence, 2, 313?324. doi:10.1037/a0027386 Essau, C. A., Conradt, J., Sasagawa, S., & Ollendick, T. H. (2012). Prevention of anxiety symptoms in children: Results from a universal school-based trial. Behavior Therapy, 43, 450?464. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.08.003 Fisak, B. J., Richard, D., & Mann, A. (2011). The prevention of child and adolescent anxiety: A meta-analytic review. Prevention Science, 12, 255?268. doi:10.1007/s11121-011- 0210-0 Flanagan, K. S., Erath, S. A., & Bierman, K. L. (2008). Unique associations between peer relations and social anxiety in early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 759?769. doi: 10.1080/15374410802359700 Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of a social skills training (SST) programme for victims of bullying. Educational Research, 45, 231?247.  doi: 10.1080/0013188032000137238 Foxman, Paul. (2004). The worried child: Recognizing anxiety in children and helping them heal. Alameda, CA: Hunter House. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 68	 ?Friedberg, R.D., & McClure, J. M. (2002). Clinical practice of cognitive therapy with children and adolescents: The nuts and bolts. New York, NY: Guilford. Fris?n, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents? perception of bullying: Who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying? Adolescence, 42, 749?761. Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 257?278. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00534 Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059?1065. Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., & Malhi, G. S. (2006). Do bullied children become anxious and depressed adults?: A cross-sectional investigation of the correlates of bullying and anxious depression. Journal Of Nervous And Mental Disease, 194(3), 201-208. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000202491.99719.c3 Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., Mitchell, P. B., Wilhelm, K. A., & Malhi, G. S. (2005). Relationship between self-reported childhood behavioral inhibition and lifetime anxiety disorders in a clinical sample. Depression And Anxiety, 22(3), 103-113. doi:10.1002/da.20082  Government of Canada, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. (2006) The human face of mental health and mental illness in Canada. (Cat. No. HP5-19/2006E). Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/human-humain06/index-eng.php   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 69	 ?Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587?599. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587 Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). Preventing mental disorders in school-age children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. Centre for Mental Health Services (CMHS), US Department of Health and Human Services.   Gumpel, T. P. (2008). Behavioral disorders in the school participant roles and sub-roles in three types of school violence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 145?162. doi: 10.1177/1063426607310846 Harris, S. L., & Petrie, G. F. (2003). Bullying: The bullies, the victims, the bystanders. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.  Hawkins, D., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512?527. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00178  Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2006). Critical characteristics of effective bullying prevention programs. In S. R. Jimerson, M. Furlong, S. R. Jimerson, & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 275?291). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heppner, P. P., & Anderson, W. P. (1985). The relationship between problem-solving self-appraisal and psychological adjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 415?427. doi: 10.1007/BF01173090  Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, R, & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 70	 ?Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94?101. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.94  http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/139 Huphrey, J. L., Storch, E. A., & Geffken, G. R. (2007). Peer victimization in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal Of Child Health Care, 11(3), 248-260. doi:10.1177/1367493507079571  Hymel, S. (2011). Bully Survey Hymel, S., Rocke-Henderson, N. & Bonanno, R. A. (2005). Moral disengagement: A framework for understanding bullying among adolescents [Special issue]. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 1?11. Inderbitzen, H. M., Walters, K. S., & Bukowski, A. L. (1997). The role of social anxiety in adolescent peer relations: Differences among sociometric status groups and rejected subgroups. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 338?348. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2604_2 Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York, NY: Guilford. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349?359. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.349 Kaltiala-Heino, R., Fr?jd, S., & Martturen, M. (2010). Involvement in bullying and depression in a 2-year follow-up in middle adolescence. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, 45?55. doi: 10.1007/s00787-009-0039-2 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 71	 ?Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348?351. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7206.348 Keltikangas-J?rvinen, L., & Pakaslahti, L. (1999). Development of social problem-solving strategies and changes in aggressive behavior: A 7-year follow-up from childhood to late adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 25(4), 269-279. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:4<269::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-K  Kilpatrick Demaray, M., & Kerres Malecki, C. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471?489. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2003). Identification of aggressive and asocial victims and the stability of their peer victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 49, 401?425. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0022 Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children's coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization?. Developmental Psychology, 38, 267?278. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.267 Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Wardrop, J. L. (2001). Chronicity and instability of children's peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 134-151. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00270 Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment?. Child Development, 67(4), 1305-1317. doi:10.2307/1131701 Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Manifestations and relations to 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 72	 ?school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 267?283. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(96)00015-5 Koskelainen, M. Sourander, A. Kaljonen, A. (2000). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire among Finnish school-aged children and adolescents. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 277?284. doi: 10.1007/s007870070031 Kovacs, M. (1996). Presentation and course of major depressive disorder during childhood and later years of the life span. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 705?715. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199606000-00010 La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal Of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49?61. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5 Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Eggum, N. D., Kochel, K. P., & McConnell, E. M. (2011). Characterizing and comparing the friendships of anxious-solitary and unsociable preadolescents. Child Development, 82, 1434?1453. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01632.x Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bj?rkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 45?52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1982.tb00412.x Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive?behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451?476. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7 Last, C. G., Hanson, C., & Franco, N. (1997). Anxious children in adulthood: A prospective 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 73	 ?study of adjustment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 645?652. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199705000-00015 Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226?232. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004  Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777?1791. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005  Lock, S. & Barrett, P. M. (2003). A longitudinal study of developmental differences in universal preventive intervention for child anxiety. Behaviour Change, 20, 183?199. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513?520. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 701?732. doi:10.1037/a0024122  Martinsen, K. D., Aalberg, M., Gere, M., & Neumer, S.-P. (2009). Using a structured treatment, Friends for Life, in Norwegian outpatient clinics: Results from a pilot study. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 2, 10?19. doi:10.1017/S1754470X08000160 Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (2003). Child psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.  McGee, R., & Stanton, W. R. (1990). Parent reports of disability among 13-year olds with DSM-	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 74	 ?III disorders. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 31(5), 793?801. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00818.x  Merikangas, K. R., He, J. P., Brody, D., Fisher, P. W., Bourdon, K., and Koretz, D. S. (2010) Prevalence and Treatment of Mental Disorders Among US Children in the 2001-2004 National Health And Nutritional Examination Survey.  Pediatrics 125: 75.   doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2598 Merikangas, K. R., He, J. P., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., & ... Swendsen, J. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication-Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal Of The American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(10), 980?989. doi:10.1016=j.jaac.2010.05.017 Miller, L. D., Laye-Gindhu, A., Bennett, J. L., Liu, Y., Gold, S., March, J. S., & ... Waechtler, V. E. (2011). An effectiveness study of a culturally enriched school-based CBT anxiety prevention program. Journal Of Clinical Child And Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 618?629. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.581619  Mychailyszyn, M. P., Beidas, R. S., Benjamin, C. L., Edmunds, J. M., Podell, J. L., Cohen, J. S., & Kendall, P. C. (2011). Assessing and treating child anxiety in schools. Psychology In The Schools, 48(3), 223?232. doi:10.1002/pits.20548  Natvig, G., Albrektsen, G., & Qvarnstr?m, U. (2001). School-related stress experience as a risk factor for bullying behavior. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence, 30(5), 561?575. doi:10.1023/A:1010448604838  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 75	 ?Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., & Hart, C. H. (2005). Relational and Physical Aggression of Preschool-Age Children: Peer Status Linkages Across Informants. Early Education And Development, 16(2), 115?139. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1602_2  Nepon, J., Belik, S., Bolton, J., & Sareen, J. (2010). The relationship between anxiety disorders and suicide attempts: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Depression And Anxiety, 27(9), 791?798. doi:10.1002/da.20674 Nezu, A.M. (2002). Problem-solving therapy. In T. Scrimali & L. Grimaldi (Eds.), Cognitive psychotherapy toward a new millennium: Scientific foundations and clinical practice (pp. 89?94). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Names Will Make Me Feel Sick: The Psychosocial, Somatic, and Scholastic Consequences of Peer Harassment. Journal Of Clinical Child And Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 37?48. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_4  Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Thomson, K. C. (2010). Understanding the link between social and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: Gender-specific predictors of peer acceptance. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence, 39(11), 1330?1342. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9 Olweus, D. (1991).  Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program.  In D.  Pepler & K.  Rubin (Eds.  ), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp.  411?448).  Hillsdale, N. J. : Erlbaum.   Olweus, D. (1993).  Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.  Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.   Olweus, D. (1996). Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire [Self report measure]. Mimeo. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 76	 ?Bergen, Norway. Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen. Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495?510. doi:10.1007/BF03172807 Orbach, I., Bar-Joseph, H., & Dror, N. (1990). Styles of problem-solving in suicidal individuals. Suicide and Life Threatening Behaviour, 20(1), 56?64.  Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73(3), 916-934. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00447 Osofsky, J. D. (1995). The effect of exposure to violence on young children. American Psychologist, 50(9), 782?788. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.782  ?st, L., & Treffers, P. A. (2001). Onset, course, and outcome for anxiety disorders in children. In W. K. Silverman, P. A. Treffers (Eds.) , Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: Research, assessment and intervention (pp. 293?312). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Ostrov, J. M., & Godleski, S. A. (2010). Toward an integrated gender-linked model of aggression subtypes in early and middle childhood. Psychological Review, 117, 233?242. doi:10.1037/a0018070 Pallant, J., (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS (4th ed. ). Maidenhead, Berkshire, England. McGraw Hill.  Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Title of work: Capital letter also for subtitle. Location: Publisher. Parada, R. H. (2002). Beyond bullying secondary schools program: Consultant?s handbook. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 77	 ?Penrith, New South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney, Self-Concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, Publication Unit. Pompili, M., Innamorati, M., Lester, D., Brunetti, S., Tatarelli, R., & Girardi, P. (2007). Gender effects among undergraduates relating to suicide risk, impulsivity, aggression and self-efficacy. Personality And Individual Differences, 43(8), 2047?2056. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.019 Randell, B. P., Eggert, L. L., & Pike, K. C. (2001). Immediate post intervention effects of two brief youth suicide prevention interventions. Suicide And Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(1), 41?61. doi:10.1521/suli.31.1.41.21308 Richter, S., & Barbara, H. (2003). Review of 'Bullying Behavior: Current Issues, Research, and Interventions'. Journal Of Developmental And Behavioral Pediatrics, 24(5), 382?383. doi:10.1097/00004703-200310000-00014 Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools.  In J.  Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (p. 310?331).  New York: Guilford Press.   Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children, involvement in bully?victim problems, and perceived social support. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 29, 119?130. Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359?368. doi:10.1002/1098-2337 Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14?24. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 78	 ?Rutter, M. (1967). A children?s behaviour questionnaire for completion by teachers: Preliminary findings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 1?11. Sadowski, C., & Kelley, M. L. (1993). Social problem solving in suicidal adolescents. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 121?127. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.121  Salmivalli, C. (2009). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112?120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 Se?er, Z., & Ogelman, H. (2011). Analysis of the Effect of a Social Problem-Solving Program on the Aggression of Children. Australian Journal Of Guidance & Counselling, 21(2), 142?153. doi:10.1375/ajgc.21.2.142  Silverman, W., La Greca, A. M. & Wassterin, S. (1995).  What do children worry about? Worries and their relations to anxiety.  Child Development, 66, 671?686.   In Craig, M.  (1998). The Relationship Among Bullying, Victimization, Depression, Anxiety, and Aggression in Elementary School Children.  Journal of Personal, Individual Differences, 24, 123?130.   Smith, D. (2008) Promoting a positive school climate: Restorative practices for the classroom. In Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M., (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: an international perspective (pp. 132?143). Bloomington, IN: Author House. Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239?268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 79	 ?Solberg, M. E., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (2007). Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils?. British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 441?464. doi:10.1348/000709906X105689 Spence, S. H. (1994). Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale [Self-report measure]. Retrieved from http://www.scaswebsite.com/index.php?p=1_6 Spence, S. H. (1997). Structure of anxiety symptoms among children: A confirmatory factor-analytic study. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 106(2), 280?297. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.2.280 Spence, S. H. (1998). A measure of anxiety symptoms among children. Behaviour Research And Therapy, 36(5), 545?566. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00034-5  Spence, S. H., Barrett, P. M., & Turner, C. M. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale with young adolescents. Journal Of Anxiety Disorders, 17(6), 605?625. doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00236-0  Steinberg, L. (1990).  Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship.  In Feldman, S. S., & Elliott G. R. (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (p. 255?276).  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 69-74. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005  Storch, E. A., Zelman, E., Sweeney, M., Danner, G., & Dove, S. (2002). Overt and relational victimization and psychosocial adjustment in minority preadolescents. Child Study Journal, 32, 73?80. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 80	 ?Strauss, C. C., Frame, C. L., & Forehand, R. (1987). Psychosocial impairment associated with anxiety in children. Journal Of Clinical Child Psychology, 16(3), 235-239. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1603_8  Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and ?theory of mind?: A critique of the ?social skills deficit? view of anti-social behavior. Social Development, 8, 117?127. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00083 Swearer, S. M., Collins, A., Haye Radli, K., & Wang, C. (2011). Internalizing problems in students involved in bullying and victimization. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American schools (2nd ed., pp. 45?62). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=edpsychpapers Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38?47. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357622 Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Takahashi, F., Koseki, S., & Shimada, H. (2009). Developmental trends in children's aggression and social problem-solving. Journal Of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 265-272. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.007 Tomada, G., & Schneider, B.H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender and peer acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance among informants. Developmental Psychology, 33, 601?609. 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 81	 ?Trach, J. Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T., & Neale, K. (2010). Age Differences in Bystander Responses to School Bullying:  A Cross-Sectional Investigation. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 114-130. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., L?sel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal Of Aggression, Conflict And Peace Research, 3(2), 63-73.  Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S. & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is Power. In J. E. Zins, M. J. Elias, & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Bullying, victimization and peer harassment: An Handbook of Prevention and Intervention (pp. 317-337). Haworth Press.   Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?. International Journal Of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 486-495. doi:10.1177/0165025408095553  Verduin, T. L., & Kendall, P. C. (2008). Peer perceptions and liking of children with anxiety disorders. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 459-469. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9192-6  Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2010). Bullying victimization among underweight and overweight U.S. youth: Differential associations for boys and girls. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 47(1), 99-101. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.12.007  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 82	 ?Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021  Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with depression. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 415-417. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012 White J. (1998). Comprehensive youth suicide prevention: a model for understanding. In Leenaars A.A., Wenckstern S., Sakinofsky I., Dyck R. J., Kral M. J., Bland R. C., (Eds). Suicide in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1998. p. 165?226. Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development During Early and Middle Adolescence. In P. A. Alexander, P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 87-113). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.   Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957?973.    	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 83	 ?Appendices Appendix A: School Package  !"#$%&'()*(+,-(./0(.1).( ()(&2(.(!(( ((!(((( !"#$%&'#()!*&+!,-.&&(!/#+$%-%0#$%&'1!1. Up to 20% of children are repeatedly victimized by their peers.  2. Victimized children tend to report more health problems, increased anxious withdrawal, low self-esteem, absenteeism, fewer friendships, feeling lonely and depressive symptoms.  3. Children who tend to bully, bully-victims and victimized children have a higher rates of school failure, suicidal ideation and depression. 4. When peers are able to intervene, bullying stops within 10 seconds 57% of the time  5. Anxious children have a higher rate of absenteeism, lower participation rates in classroom and extracurricular activities, and they tend to have a lower level of academic achievement. 6. School-based research suggests that less than one-third of all children suffering from a serious emotional disorder actually receive help.  7. The school setting is one of the main environments where children experience bullying interactions.  8. Due to sustained regular contact with students, schools are in the unique position to help address bullying and treat anxiety problems.   9. Working in schools with children and their parents has been shown to be important in the prevention and early intervention of both bullying and anxiety problems. (/2+0&3)!&*!$.)!/+&4)-$1 1. To determine if participation in the Social Emotional Learning program ?FRIENDS for Life? is effective in reducing the frequency of victimization and bullying. 2. To determine if participating in the ?FRIENDS for Life? program is effective in decreasing anxiety symptoms in children compared to children who do not experience this program  3. To determine if participating in the ?FRIENDS for Life? program is effective in teaching social problem-solving skills.    As you may have already experienced in your schools, the effects of bullying can be detrimental to both bullies and victims. Both bullies and victims are at risk for problems in school achievement, incarceration and depression and suicide problems (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1993). Victimized children are also more likely to report health problems than non-victimized children (Rigby, 1996). Anxiety and depression may be ways children cope with bullying interactions (Craig, 2000).  (,&3%,4(55&6%&',4(6",#'%'7(8((7944-%'7(/#":"'6%&'!8,5697!/#":"'6%&'(;':"$6%7,6%&'(2&#(<=%4>#"'?(!@(A3=&&4(BC,$">(D#&E"36(.1).(B(.1)F(Project Office:  Dept. of Educational and Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education, UBC 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604-822-8321 Email: sarahruggier@gmail.com  Principal Investigator :  Lynn Miller, Ph.D., RPsych., Professor Co-Investigator: Sarah Ruggier, M.A. Candidate 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 84	 ?  !"#$%&'()*(+,-(./0(.1).( (.(&2(.(( ((( Anxiety disorders are the most common mental health disorders in children, and are associated with a multitude of psychosocial problems including higher rates of depression, adolescent suicide, increased use of tobacco, alcohol misuse, poor social relationships, lower academic achievement, school avoidance, and impaired family cohesion and functioning (Ost & Treffers, 2003). Childhood anxiety disorders often go undetected and untreated (Barrett, Duffy, Dadds, & Rapee, 2001).     The SEL&B Investigation is interested in the relationship between and anxiety prevention program and frequency of bullying and victimization from the student?s point of view. Some research suggests that anxiety may be a predictor for both bullying and victimization (Craig, 1997). If a link between anxiety prevention and intervention programs for schools, bullying behaviour and or victimization can be found, this can serve to improve the access to effective treatment for children suffering from anxiety and bullying interactions.  !"#$$%&'()*$+),-,%,.,()/ 1. Assistance with the distribution and collection of consent forms to parents and students in grade 4 or 5 classes. 2. Provision of: class lists of participating classes and school space and class time for the 20 minute questionnaire on three occasions during the 2012-2013 school year 3. Delivery of the FRIENDS for Life Program either between the months of October and December 2012 (Group 1), OR March and June 2013 (Group 2). Your school will be randomly assigned to either Group 1 or Group 2 by drawing names out of a hat. Teachers will be informed of their schedule no later than September 21st, 2012. 01$"(231(/&Participants will be recruited from grade 4 or 5 classes in 8 elementary schools among the Catholic Independent Schools of Vancouver. All students will be asked to fill in the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire (SEL&B) at three time points through out the school year. The co-investigator of this project will administer the completion the questionnaires:   Time 1: October 2012 (first week), before the FRIENDS for Life program begins (Group 1 classes)  Time 2: December 2012, one week after the completion of the FRIENDS for Life program   Time 3: March 2013, 90 days after the completion of the FRIENDS for Life program  01$4(".&!"#(23%(/&&Consent forms to parents      September 2012 Time 1 Questionnaire     October 2012 Intervention  ?Friends for Life? (Group 1)  October ? December 2012 Time 2 Questionnaire     December 2012  Time 3 Questionnaire     First week of March 2013 Intervention  ?Friends for Life? (Group 2)  October ? December 2012  Please do not hesitate to contact any of the research staff at the project office or at the email provided above.  Thank you for your time and consideration,    Lynn Miller,       Sarah Ruggier,  Ph.D., R.Psych,      MA Candidate, Project Coordinator Professor Counselling Psychology    University of British Columbia University of British Columbia,    Teacher, Catholic Independent Schools of Vancouver  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 85	 ?Appendix B: Teacher Consent Form   !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (( /(&0(1(       Consent Form - Teacher  Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  Principal Investigator: Dr. Lynn Miller, Ph.D.,  Co-Investigator: Sarah Rugger, M.A. (Candidate) Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Tel. (604) 822-8539 or Email, sarahruggier@gmail.com  September 2012  Dear Grade 4/5 Teacher,  Purpose:   Grade 4/5 teachers in the Catholic Independent Schools of Vancouver are invited to participate in the Social Emotional Learning and Bully Prevention (SEL&B) Investigation. The purpose of the SEL&B Investigation is to determine if delivering the SEL program ?FRIENDS for Life? is effective in reducing frequency of bullying behaviour and victimization. And, to determine if participating in the ?FRIENDS for Life? program is effective in decreasing anxiety symptoms and increasing problem solving skills in children attending independent schools in Vancouver.  Up to 20% of children are repeatedly victimized by their peers, and anxiety concerns are the most common mental health disorder in children. Research demonstrates that when peers are able to intervene, bullying stops within 10 seconds 57% of the time.  Victimized children tend to report more health problems, increased anxious withdrawal, low self-esteem, absenteeism, fewer friendships and depressive symptoms. Children who tend to bully, bully-victims and victimized children have a higher rates of school failure, suicidal ideation and depression. While childhood anxiety can negatively impact children?s social relationships, academic achievement, as well as family functioning.   Research demonstrates that early intervention can be extremely successful in helping children overcome anxiety. This investigation will assess if there is a relationship between overcoming anxiety and improvements the frequency of bullying interactions.   Study Procedure: Participants will be recruited from grade 4 or 5 classes in 8 elementary schools among the Catholic Independent Schools of Vancouver. The FRIENDS for Life program will be delivered in all of the 8 classrooms (either in October 2012 or April 2013, see below for explanation). Students will be asked to fill in the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire (SEL&B) at three time points through out the year. !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()!"!#$%&'($%&))$*&(+,-./01$23$3&(&4&$*56$"78$6/)9$:5;8<$=!!>=?!"$$@A&')9$B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A$$$T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 86	 ? !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (( )(&0(1( Role of Teacher: All participating teachers will be asked to  1. Distribute consent forms to their students for their parents to sign and to refer any inquiries from parents to the research team at (604) 822-8539 or sarahruggier@gmail.com.  2. Teacher?s who have been trained to deliver the FRIENDS for Life program will be asked to deliver the program either between October and December 2012 (Group 1) or April and June 2013 (Group 2). Schools will be randomly assigned to either Group 1 or Group 2 by drawing school names out of a hat. All teachers will be informed of their schedule as soon as all consent has been given by all participating schools, and no later than September 21st, 2013.  3. Provide class lists of participating classes, school space and class time for the 20-minute questionnaire on three occasions during the 2012-2013 school year. 4. Complete the Strengths/Difficulties Questionnaire for each student 2 times during the school year. (approximately 2-3 hours total)  Risks and Benefits:  It is not anticipated that this intervention will pose any risks to you, your school or your students. In the case that some of the questions we ask might upset a student we will provide a list of resources and counselling services to every participant prior to the questionnaire.  A significant potential benefit is the reduction of anxiety symptoms, which has the potential to positively impact social relationships, academic achievement, and family functioning. An additional potential benefit is the improvement in frequency of bullying and victimization through increased awareness and exposure to positive social skills.   Confidentiality:  Any identifying information resulting from the research study will be kept strictly confidential. All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet. Participants will not be identified by name in any study reports. Electronic data stored on the computer will be password protected. It is the teacher?s responsibility to maintain confidentiality, by not disclosing the identity of students participating in this study.  Inquiries: If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Sarah Ruggier at (604) 822-8539 or sarahruggier@gmail.com. If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research participant, please contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at the University of British Columbia, at (604) 822-8598. Sincerely,  Sarah Ruggier M.A. Candidate  University of British Columbia  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 87	 ? !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (( +(&0(1(      Teacher Consent Form Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to my teaching position within my school. I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. ! I agree to distribute consent forms/questionnaires to my grade 4 or 5 students.     Yes     No ! I agree to forward parent inquiries to the research team.     Yes     No ! I agree to deliver the FRIENDS for Life program in my classroom in either October 2012 or April 2013 according to the research co-investigator?s request by September 21st 2012.     Yes     No ! I agree to complete the Strengths/Difficulties questionnaire for each of my students, twice during the school year.      Yes     No ! I will not disclose the identity of the students participating in this study with outside classroom and school members (School principal, classroom parents exempt).    Yes      No Teacher?s Name:         (please print) Signature:        Date:       School:         School Telephone Number:       School Address:           Teaching Assignment (days/time):         Please complete this consent form and place in the self-addressed stamped envelope, seal, and return to our office. Keep the second copy in this form for yourself. *All responses will be held confidential* !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()!"!#$%&'($%&))$*&(+,-./01$23$3&(&4&$*56$"78$6/)9$:5;8<$=!!>=?!"$$@A&')9$B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A$$$T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 88	 ?   !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (( 0 (&1(0(       THIS COPY IS FOR YOU TO KEEP FOR YOUR OWN RECORDS. Teacher Consent Form Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to my teaching position within my school. I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. ! I agree to distribute consent forms/questionnaires to my grade 4 or 5 students.     Yes     No ! I agree to forward parent inquiries to the research team.     Yes     No ! I agree to deliver the FRIENDS for Life program in my classroom in either October 2012 or April 2013 according to the research co-investigator?s request by September 21st 2012.     Yes     No ! I agree to complete the Strengths/Difficulties questionnaire for each of my students, twice during the school year.      Yes     No ! I will not disclose the identity of the students participating in this study with outside classroom and school members (School principal, classroom parents exempt).    Yes      No Teacher?s Name:         (please print) Signature:        Date:       School:         School Telephone Number:       School Address:           Teaching Assignment (days/time):         Please complete this consent form and place in the self-addressed stamped envelope, seal, and return to our office. Keep the second copy in this form for yourself. *All responses will be held confidential* !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()!"!#$%&'($%&))$*&(+,-./01$23$3&(&4&$*56$"78$6/)9$:5;8<$=!!>=?!"$$@A&')9$B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A$$$T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 89	 ? Appendix C: Parent Consent Form                     !"#$%&'()*(+,(-./(+0)+( (!( )(&1(2(     CONSENT FORM - Parent  Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  Principal Investigator: Dr. Lynn Miller, Ph.D. Co-investigator: Sarah Rugger, M.A. (Candidate) Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Tel. (604) 822-8539  September 2012,  Dear Parent,  Purpose:  Your child is invited to participate in the Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation. The purpose of the SEL&B Investigation is to determine if delivering the SEL program ?FRIENDS for Life? is effective in reducing frequency of bullying behaviour and victimization. And, to determine if participating in the ?FRIENDS for Life? program is effective in decreasing anxiety symptoms and increasing problem solving skills in children attending independent schools in Vancouver.   Study Procedure:  Participants will be recruited from grade 4 or 5 classes in 8 elementary schools among the Catholic Independent Schools of Vancouver. The FRIENDS for Life program will be delivered in all the classrooms either between the months of October-December 2012, or April-June 2013.   Students with permission will be asked to fill in a social emotional learning and bully/victimization questionnaire at three time points through out the year, once each in October and December 2012 and once in March 2013.   Risks and Benefits:  It is not anticipated that this intervention will pose any risks. In the case that some of the questions we ask might upset a student we will provide a list of resources and counselling services to every participant prior to each questionnaire. A significant potential benefit is the reduction of anxiety symptoms, which has the potential to positively impact social relationships, academic achievement, and family functioning. An additional potential benefit is the improvement of attitudes towards bullying through increased awareness and exposure to positive social skills.  !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()"#"$!%&'(!%&))!*&(+,-./01!23!3&(&4&!*56!#78!6/)9!:5;8<!="">=?"#!!@A&')9!B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A!!!T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 90	 ? !"#$%&'()*(+,(-./(+0)+( (!( +(&1(2(Confidentiality:  Any identifying information resulting from the research study will be kept strictly confidential. All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet. Participants will not be identified by name in any study reports. Electronic data stored on the computer will be password protected. Parents are asked not to disclose the identity of other students/parents participating in this study.  Compensation: All participating classrooms will be entered in a draw to receive a pizza party. This will be awarded at the conclusion of the research project.  Inquiries: If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Sarah Ruggier at (604) 822-8539 or sarahruggier@gmail.com. If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research participant, please contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at the University of British Columbia, at (604) 822-8598.  Sincerely,   Sarah Ruggier "#$#!%&'()(&*+!!,')-+./)*0!12!3.)*)/4!%15678)&    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 91	 ? !"#$%&'()*(+,(-./(+0)+( (!( 1(&2(3(    Parent Consent Form  Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study, and that of my child?s, is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to my child?s class standing or any other school function. I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. Child?s Name:       Age:     Teacher?s Name:       School:       ! I agree to allow my son/daughter to participate in completing the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire at three time points through out the school year.      Yes    No ! I will not disclose the identity of the students/parents participating in this study with other school staff (classroom teacher/ School principal exempt), parents, and students.  Parent/Guardian Name:        (please print) Signature:        Date:        Home Telephone Number:       Home Address:           Please complete this consent form, complete the enclosed questionnaires, and place in the self-addressed stamped envelope, seal, and return to our office. Keep the second copy in this form for yourself. *All responses will be held confidential* !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()"#"$!%&'(!%&))!*&(+,-./01!23!3&(&4&!*56!#78!6/)9!:5;8<!="">=?"#!!@A&')9!B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A!!!T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 92	 ? !"#$%&'()*(+,(-./(+0)+( (!( 1(&2(1(    THIS COPY IS FOR YOU TO KEEP FOR YOUR OWN RECORDS. Parent & Child Consent Form Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study, and that of my child?s, is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to my child?s class standing or any other school function.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records.  Child?s Name:       Age:     Teacher?s Name:       School:       ! I agree to allow my son/daughter to participate in completing the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire at three time points through out the school year.      Yes    No ! I will not disclose the identity of the students/parents participating in this study with other school staff (classroom teacher/ School principal exempt), parents, and students.  Parent/Guardian Name:        (please print)  Signature:        Date:       Home Telephone Number:       Home Address:           Keep this second copy of this form for yourself. !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()"#"$!%&'(!%&))!*&(+,-./01!23!3&(&4&!*56!#78!6/)9!:5;8<!="">=?"#!!@A&')9!B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A!!!T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 93	 ?Appendix D: Participant Assent Form   !"#$%#&'(")*'+'$,-./0,''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''September 2012 !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (''( /(&0(1('        Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B)  Prevention Investigation  Principal Investigator: Dr. Lynn Miller, Ph.D. Co-investigator: Sarah Rugger, M.A. (Candidate) Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Tel. (604) 822-8539   Dear Student, '''''''''''       'Purpose By filling out this survey, you can help us understand how and if the FRIENDS for Life program has helped you and your class. You will see questions asking about your feelings of anxiety (worrying), your experiences with bullying and being bullied, and finally how easy or hard some of your experiences on the play ground or with friends may be.  Procedure We will ask you to fill out this survey 3 times this year, in October, December and March. In return, your class will be entered in a draw to win a pizza party at the end of the year.  To participate you will need your parents or guardians to give you permission. If they have agreed that you can participate, then you can also sign an assent form, which means you agree that you want to participate too.  Confidentiality Your answers are completely private. You will not need to put your name on your survey. If you agree to participate, we would ask you to please ? Keep your answers private while your are filling out your survey  ? Respect the privacy of your peers as they complete their survey, and  ? Keep your answers to yourself after the survey is finished.    !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()1213'*450'*466'74089-:/;<'=!'!404.4'7>&'2?@'&/6A'B>C@D'E11FEG12''%H456A'I4;4J;-KK5/;LKH456M89H'''T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 94	 ?  !"#$%#&'(")*'+'$,-./0,''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''September 2012 !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (''( )(&0(1(''''!''''''''' ''Thank you for thinking about participating in this research, please don?t hesitate to ask any questions you might have!    Sincerely,  Sarah Ruggier M.A. Candidate  University of British Columbia    Benefits There are some possible benefits of doing this survey. You may help us understand how to best help other kids who have a hard time at school with anxiety  (worries) and bullying. You might also learn ways to feel happier at school, have happier friendships and learn how to stand up for your self or others when you or they feel they are being bullied.  Risks We don?t think that doing this survey will cause you any harm. If you feel upset and would like to talk to someone after doing this survey because of things going on in your life at school or with friends, you will have an opportunity to let us know at the end of each time we come to your class. If you let us know, we will inform your school psychologist and school principal, and they have agreed do their best to listen and help. We will also give you a list of websites with helpful information and a phone number (Kids Help Phone) you can call to talk to a safe, responsible adult about your concerns.  Questions ?  If you have any questions or concerns after reading this, please feel free to contact us at (604)-822-8539 or email us at sarahruggier@gmail.com. If you have any concerns about how you?ve been treated or you rights as a participant in this research study, please contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at the University of British Columbia, at (604) 822-8598.    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 95	 ?  !"#$%#&'(")*'+'$,-./0,''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''September 2012 !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (''( +(&0(1(       CONSENT FORM- Student Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study is entirely my choice and that I can say no or stop participating in the study at any time without any consequences.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records.  Child?s Name:       Age:     Teacher?s Name:       School:       ! I agree to participate in the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire at three time points through out the school year.      Yes    No ! I will not disclose my identity or the identity of any other students participating in this study with other school staff other parents or students.   Signature:          Date:        Please complete this assent form and the enclosed questionnaire and return them to the us after you are finished. You may keep the second copy of this form for yourself. *All responses will be held confidential*  !"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()1213'*450'*466'74089-:/;<'=!'!404.4'7>&'2?@'&/6A'B>C@D'E11FEG12''%H456A'I4;4J;-KK5/;LKH456M89H'''T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 96	 ? !"#$%#&'(")*'+'$,-./0,''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''September 2012 !"#$%&'()*(+,(-.'"(),/)( (''( 0 (&1(0(      CONSENT FORM- Student Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL&B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study is entirely my choice and that I can say no or stop participating in the study at any time without any consequences.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records.  Child?s Name:       Age:     Teacher?s Name:       School:       ! I agree to participate in the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire at three time points through out the school year.      Yes    No ! I will not disclose my identity or the identity of any other students participating in this study with other school staff other parents or students.   Signature:          Date:        Please complete this assent form and the enclosed questionnaire and return them to the us after you are finished. You may keep the second copy of this form for yourself. *All responses will be held confidential*  Keep this second copy of this form for yourself.((!"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()1213'*450'*466'74089-:/;<'=!'!404.4'7>&'2?@'&/6A'B>C@D'E11FEG12''%H456A'I4;4J;-KK5/;LKH456M89H'''T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 97	 ?Appendix E: Bullying Survey   Bullying Survey  All responses on this survey are confidential (private) ? do not put your name on it.   Make sure to read every question. This is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers, but it is important to answer honestly. If you are not comfortable answering a question, or you don?t know what it means, you can ask for help or leave it blank.  Please do not look at other student?s answers. If there is anything you need help with, or if you have any questions, please raise your hand and we will come over to help you.         Tell us about yourself 1.  What is the name of your school? _____________________________  2.  What grade are you in?   (choose one)     3.  Are you male or female?   (choose one)   4.  How long have you lived in   Canada? (choose one)          5.  Is english the main language  spoken in your home?   6.  How old are you (in years)?     It is important to colour the circles completely, like this: Please DO NOT use ! Please DO NOT use "   4  5   Male        Female  Less than 2 years             2-4 years           more than 4 years   yes  no  8  9                 10  11  12               13!!!#_______	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 98	 ?     Bullying at Your School? The next few questions ask about bullying at your school. There are lots of different ways to bully someone, but a bully wants to hurt the other person (it?s not an accident), and does so repeatedly and unfairly (bullies have some advantage over the person they hurt). Sometimes a group of students will bully another student.  Think about this school year when you answer the following questions about bullying.   How often have you? 7. Been bullied?.....................................  8. Taken part in bullying?.......................  9. Seen other students being bullied?....    How often have you been?  10. Physically bullied, when someone:               11.Verbally bullied, when someone:      12. Socially bullied, when someone:       13. Cyber-bullied, when someone:        hit, kicked, punched, pushed you, physically hurt you,  damaged or stole your property said mean things to you teased you or called you names threatened you or tried to hurt your feelings said bad things behind your back gossiped or spread rumours about you,  got other students not to like you ignored you or refused to play with you used the computer, websites, emails, text messages or pictures online to threaten you, hurt you, make you look bad, or spread rumours about you Never Once or a few times Every Month Every Week Several times a week Never Once or a few times Every Month Every Week Several times a week 1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 99	 ?            How often have you seen  other students being?  14. Physically bullied, when someone?   15.Verbally bullied, when someone:??.   16. Socially bullied, when someone:??   17. Cyber-bullied, when someone:?.?.     How often have you  taken part in ?  18. Physically bullied, when someone:?.   19.Verbally bullied, when someone:??  20. Socially bullied, when someone:.??  21. Cyber-bullied, when someone:.??..          Never Once or a few times Every Month Every Week Several times a week 1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5Never Once or a few times Every Month Every Week Several times a week 1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 100	 ?Appendix F: Spence Children?s Anxiety Scale (SCAS)                                          !!!"#$%#&%'()*+#$,!&-$.(#/0&!%-)#&!"#$%!&'()*!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! +',)*!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!"#$%#&!'(&$&)*+)"#&$+,'-.&(/#&0,+.&(/$(&%/,0%&/,0&,1(#-&#$)/&,1&(/#%#&(/*-2%&/$!!#-&(,&3,'4&(/#+#&$+#&-,&+*2/(&,+&0+,-2&$-%0#+%4&!"# $#%&''(#)*&+,#,-./01""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""222222# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1##<"# $#)7#1=)'4>#&9#,-4#>)'?""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""22222""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#"#! @-4/#$#-)54#)#A'&*;47B#$#04,#)#9+//(#944;./0#./#7(#1,&7)=-222"""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# $%&'(! :;%)(1!C"# $#944;#)9').>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""222""222"""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#D"# $#%&+;>#944;#)9').>#&9#*4./0#&/#7(#&%/#),#-&74""""""2222222""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#E"# $#944;#1=)'4>#%-4/#$#-)54#,&#,)?4#)#,41,"""""""""""""""""""""""2222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#F"# $#944;#)9').>#.9#$#-)54#,&#+14#A+*;.=#,&.;4,1#&'#*),-'&&71"""""""""""2222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#G"# $#%&''(#)*&+,#*4./0#)%)(#9'&7#7(#A)'4/,1""""""""""""""""""""""222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#H"# $#944;#)9').>#,-),#$#%.;;#7)?4#)#9&&;#&9#7(14;9#./#9'&/,#&9#A4&A;4"""""""""""""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!I"# $#%&''(#,-),#$#%.;;#>&#*)>;(#),#7(#1=-&&;#%&'?"""""""""""""""2222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!!"# $#)7#A&A+;)'#)7&/01,#&,-4'#?.>1#7(#&%/#)04"""""""""""""""""22222"""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!<"# $#%&''(#,-),#1&74,-./0#)%9+;#%.;;#-)AA4/#,&#1&74&/4!./#7(#9)7.;(""""""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!J"# $#1+>>4/;(#944;#)1#.9#$#=)/K,#*'4),-4#%-4/#,-4'4!.1#/&#'4)1&/#9&'#,-.1"""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!C"# $#-)54#,&#?44A#=-4=?./0#,-),#$#-)54#>&/4#,-./01#'.0-,#L;.?4#,-4#1%.,=-### .1#&99B#&'#,-4#>&&'#.1#;&=?4>M"""""22222222222222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!D"# $#944;#1=)'4>#.9#$#-)54#,&#1;44A#&/#7(#&%/""""""""""""""""""""2222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!E"# $#-)54#,'&+*;4#0&./0#,&#1=-&&;#./#,-4#7&'/./01#*4=)+14#$#944;#/4'5&+1#!# &'#)9').>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""2222222222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/! :;%)(1#!F"# $#)7#0&&>#),#1A&',1""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""222222"""""""""""""""""""""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!G"# $#)7#1=)'4>#&9#>&01"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""222222""""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#!H"# $#=)/K,#1447#,&#04,#*)>#&'#1.;;(#,-&+0-,1#&+,#&9#7(#-4)>"""22222"""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#<I"# @-4/#$#-)54#)#A'&*;47B#7(#-4)',#*4),1#'4);;(#9)1,""""2222222""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#<!"# $#1+>>4/;(#1,)',#,&#,'47*;4#&'#1-)?4#%-4/#,-4'4#.1#/&#'4)1&/#9&'#,-.1"""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#<<"# $#%&''(#,-),#1&74,-./0#*)>#%.;;#-)AA4/#,&#74"""2""""""""2222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#<J"# $#)7#1=)'4>#&9#0&./0#,&#,-4#>&=,&'1#&'#>4/,.1,1"""""""""2222222"""""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#<C"# @-4/#$#-)54#)#A'&*;47B#$#944;#1-)?("""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""222222""# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1##<D"# $#)7#1=)'4>#&9#*4./0#./#-.0-#A;)=41#&'#;.9,1#L4;45),&'1M2222222"# 3454'# 6&74,.741# 89,4/# :;%)(1#	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 101	 ?                                  !"#$ %$&'$&$())*$+,-.)/######################################################0000#####$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$!<#$ %$=&2,$4)$4=5/>$)7$.+,?5&9$4=)@(=4.$4)$.4)+$A&*$4=5/(.$7-)'$=&++,/5/($$$ B95>,$/@'A,-.$)-$:)-*.C#######################0000000000#0$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$!D$ %$7,,9$.?&-,*$57$%$=&2,$4)$4-&2,9$5/$4=,$?&-E$)-$)/$&$F@.$)-$&$4-&5/#############$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$!G#$ %$:)--;$:=&4$)4=,-$+,)+9,$4=5/>$)7$',######################0000000######$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HI#$ %$&'$&7-&5*$)7$A,5/($5/$?-):*,*$+9&?,.$B95>,$.=)++5/($?,/4-,.E$4=,$$ ')25,.E$A@.,.E$A@.;$+9&;(-)@/*.C##########0000000000000$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HJ#$ %$7,,9$=&++;###############################################################################0000##$1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$H!#$ 899$)7$&$.@**,/$%$7,,9$-,&99;$.?&-,*$7)-$/)$-,&.)/$&4$&990000000#$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HH#$ %$&'$.?&-,*$)7$5/.,?4.$)-$.+5*,-.#####################################000000##$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HK#$ %$.@**,/9;$A,?)',$*5LL;$)-$7&5/4$:=,/$4=,-,$5.$/)$-,&.)/$7)-$4=5.#########$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HM#$ %$7,,9$&7-&5*$57$%$=&2,$4)$4&9>$5/$7-)/4$)7$';$?9&..#####000000000##$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$H"#$ N;$=,&-4$.@**,/9;$.4&-4.$4)$A,&4$4))$O@5?>9;$7)-$/)$-,&.)/00000##$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$H<#$ %$:)--;$4=&4$%$:599$.@**,/9;$(,4$&$.?&-,*$7,,95/($:=,/$4=,-,$5.$/)4=5/($$ 4)$A,$&7-&5*$)7####################################000000000000########0$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HD#$$ %$95>,$';.,97################################################################00000000##$1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$HG#$ %$&'$&7-&5*$)7$A,5/($5/$.'&99$?9).,*$+9&?,.E$95>,$4@//,9.$)-$.'&99$-))'.#$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$KI#$ %$=&2,$4)$*)$.)',$4=5/(.$)2,-$&/*$)2,-$&(&5/$B95>,$:&.=5/($';$=&/*.E$?9,&/5/($)-$+@445/($4=5/(.$5/$&$?,-4&5/$)-*,-C###0000000000###$ 1,2,-$$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$KJ#$ %$(,4$A)4=,-,*$A;$A&*$)-$.599;$4=)@(=4.$)-$+5?4@-,.$5/$';$'5/*0000#$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$K!#$ %$=&2,$4)$*)$.)',$4=5/(.$5/$P@.4$4=,$-5(=4$:&;$4)$.4)+$A&*$4=5/(.$$$ =&++,/5/(################################################00000000#0000###$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$KH#$$ %$&'$+-)@*$)7$';$.?=))9$:)->#######################################00#0000####$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$KK#$ %$:)@9*$7,,9$.?&-,*$57$%$=&*$4)$.4&;$&:&;$7-)'$=)',$)2,-/5(=40000#$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$KM#$$ %.$4=,-,$.)',4=5/($,9.,$4=&4$;)@$&-,$-,&99;$&7-&5*$)7Q#####00000##0#$ RS3$ 16$$ T9,&.,$:-54,$*):/$:=&4$54$5.$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ U):$)74,/$&-,$;)@$&7-&5*$)7$4=5.$4=5/(Q###########################0000000$ 1,2,-$ 3)',45',.$ 674,/$ 89:&;.$$$$$$! $JGGK$3@.&/$U#$3+,/?,$$	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 102	 ? Appendix G: Participant Help & Resources Form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tudent !Title: Social Emotional Learning & Bullying (SEL B) Prevention Investigation  I understand that my participation in this study, and that of my child?s, is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without jeopardy to my child?s class standing or any other school function. I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records.  Child?s Name:       Age:     Teacher?s Name:       School:       ! I agree to allow my son/daughter to participate in completing the Social Emotional Learning and Bully/Victimization Questionnaire at three time points through out the school year.      Yes    No ! I will not disclose the identity of the students/parents participating in this study with other school staff (classroom teacher/ School principal exempt), parents, and students.  Parent/Guardian Name:        (please print) Signature:        Date:        Home Telephone Number:       Home Address:           Keep this second copy of this form for yourself.((!"#$%&'"(&)*+),-./$&0*($1)$(-)2*.(3"110(4)536/7*1*468)$(-)9#"/0$1),-./$&0*()"#"$!%&'(!%&))!*&(+,-./01!23!3&(&4&!*56!#78!6/)9!:5;8<!="">=?"#!!@A&')9!B&0&C0-DD'/0EDA&')F+,A!!!T H E  U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 103	 ? Helpful resources If you are struggling with bullying or anxiety you can: 1. Tell your parents, classroom teacher and or any other responsible adult in your school that you trust. Keep talking to people until you feel the problem has gotten better.   2. Visit the following websites for more information, to get ideas on how to stop the problem, and even to play games! :  Bullying:   Anxiety: www.bullyingcanada.ca,   www.anxietybc.ca www.bullying.org  3. Call or chat online with the kids help phone:  Free phone call to: 1-800-668-6868 http://www.kidshelpphone.ca/Kids/Home.aspx       	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 104	 ? Here are some quick ideas to start solving bullying problems in your school: !"#$%&www.bullyingcanada.ca& !&& &?for taking the time to answer these questions! Victims: !!- Walk away !- Tell someone you trust !- Take the initiative to get help !- Say something complimentary to the bully to distract them!- Stay in groups to avoid confrontation !- Use humour to deflect the situation !- Never let the bully see you sweat !- Practice self affirmation (i.e. I am a nice person) !Bystanders: !!Instead of ignoring a bullying incident try the following: !!- Tell a teacher!- Move toward or next to the victim !- Use your voice "stop" !- Befriend the victim !- Lead victim away from the situation !Bullies: !- Talk to a teacher/counsellor !- Put yourself in their shoes !- Stop the cycle !- Think before you act !	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 105	 ? Appendix H: Treatment Fidelity Checklist          111 Appendix D Teacher?s Name: ________________________ School: ______________________  FRIENDS FIDELITY CHECKLIST Please take a minute or two to fill this out on a weekly basis.  I will collect this checklist at the end of FRIENDS. Thank you. Reminder: According to FRIENDS trainers, teachers are not asked to complete all of the activities included in each session ? this checklist is a record of which activities you have selected and delivered in order to achieve each weekly session?s objective(s). Thanks!    SESSION 1 ? INTRODUCTION TO THE GROUP  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 1.  __ 1. Rationale of the Group, Introduce members to each other __ 2. Explain FRIENDS Program __ 3. Activity #1: Questions for Making Friendships __ 4. Activity #2: Working Together __ 5. Activity #3: People are Different __ 6. Activity #4: Jessica and Tom __ 7. Introduce Home Activities and Negotiate Rewards  Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________  Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N  Delivery of Session 1 activities/lessons: __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week) Total delivery time of Session 1:  ________ minutes (approx). 	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 106	 ?         112      SESSION 2 ? INTRODUCTION TO FEELINGS  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 2.   __ 1. Review Session #1 and Home Activities  __ 2. Let?s Talk about Feelings  __ 3. A ctivity #1: Face 2 Face  __ 4. Activity #2: Understanding Feelings  __ 5. Activity #3: Our Thoughts and Feelings  __ 6. Activity #4: Our Control Centre  __ 7. Extra Time Activities (Isabella and Carlos/Joanna and Daniel)  __ 8. Assign Home Activities   Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________   Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________    Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 2 activities/lessons:  __ Delivered once during the week  __ Delivered as two half- sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)    Total delivery time of Session 2:  ________ minutes (approx).       	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 107	 ?       113     SESSION 3 ? LEARNING TO FEEL CONFIDENT AND BRAVE: STEPS 1 & 2  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 3.   __ 1. Re view Session #2 and Home Activities  __ 2. Introduce Step 1 to Feeling Confident and Brave  __ 3. Activity #1: Let?s learn to be a Friend to our Bodies  __ 4. Introduce Step 2 to Feeling Confident and Brave  __ 5. Activity #2: Relaxation Games  __ 6. Activity # 3: Learning How to Feel Good  __ 7. Activity #4: Helping Others to Feel Good  __ 8. Assign Home Activity   Other Songs included in this session (if any): ______________________________   Storybooks included in this session (if any): ___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________    Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 3 activities/lessons: __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 3:  ________ minutes (approx).     	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 108	 ?       114    SESSION 4 ? LEARNING TO FEEL CONFIDENT AND BRAVE: STEP 3A  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 4.   __ 1. Review Session #3 and Home Activity __ 2. Introduce Step 3 to Feeling Confident and Brave __ 3. Activity #1: Happiness Creations __ 4. Activity #2: Thought Balloon Game __ 5. Activity #3: Always Think Twice __ 6. Activity #4: Thinking in Helpful Ways __ 7. Assign Home Activity  Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________  Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 4 activities/lessons: __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 4:  ________ minutes (approx).   	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 109	 ?    115      SESSION 5 ? LEARNING TO FEEL CONFIDENT AND BRAVE: STEPS 3B & 4A   Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 5.   __ 1. Review Session #4 and Home Activity __ 2. Activity #1: Attention Training Exercise __ 3. Activity #2: Changing Unhelpful into Helpful Thoughts __ 4. Introduce Step 4 to Feeling Confident and Brave __ 5. Activity #3: Exploring Ways to Cope __ 6. Introduce the Coping Step Plan for Difficult Situations __ 7. Assign Home Activity  Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________  Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 5 activities/lessons: __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 5:  ________ minutes (approx).    	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 110	 ?     116     SESSION 6 ? LEARNING TO FEEL CONFIDENT AND BRAVE: STEP 4B  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 6.   __ 1. Review Session #5 and Home Activity  __ 2. Acti vity #1: Role Models in My Life  __ 3. Activity #2: Support Teams  __ 4. Introduce the 6 -Block Problem-Solving Plan __ 5. Activity #3: Let?s use the 6 -Block Problem-Solving Plan __ 6. Review Step 4 to Feeling Confident and Brave  __ 7. Assign Home Activities   Other Songs included in this session (if any):  ______________________________   Storybooks included in this session (if any): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____    Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 6 activities/lessons: __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 6:  ________ minutes (approx).      	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 111	 ?        117     SESSION 7 ? LEARNING TO FEEL CONFIDENT AND BRAVE: STEP 5   Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 7.   _ _ 1. Review Session #6 and Home Activities  __ 2. Introduce Step 5 to Feeling Confident and Brave  __ 3. Activity #1: Be Happy with Yourself for Trying  __ 4. Activity #2: Your Coping Step Plan Rewards  __ 5. Group Discussion  __ 6. Activity #3: Thinking Like a  Winner  __ 7. Activity #4: Seeing the Funny Side of Life  __ 8. Assign Home Activities   Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________   Storybooks included in this session (if any): ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________    Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 7 activities/lessons:  __ Delivered  once during the week  __ Delivered as two half- sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)    Total delivery time of Session 7:  ________ minutes (approx).        	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 112	 ?         118     SESSION 8 ? LEARNING TO FEEL CONFIDENT AND BRAVE: STEPS 6 & 7   Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 8.   __ 1. Review Session #7 and Home Activities __ 2. Introduce Step 6 and 7 to Feeling Confident and Brave __ 3. Using the FRIENDS Plan  __ 4. Activity #1: Coaching Companions __ 5. Activity #2: Practicing your Coping Step Plan __ 6. Assign Home Activities  Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________  Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 8 activities/lessons:  __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 8:  ________ minutes (approx).          	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 113	 ?     119     SESSION 9 ? USING THE FRIENDS PLAN: HELPING OURSELVES AND OTHERS  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 9.   __ 1. Review Session #8 and Home Activities  __ 2. Activity #1: The FRIENDS Plan: How to Use It  __ 3. Activity #2: Using the FRIENDS Plan to Help Ourselves and Oth ers __ 4. Assign Home Activity  Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________  Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 9 activities/lessons:  __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 9:  ________ minutes (approx).       	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ? 114	 ?        120    SESSION 10 ? REVIEW AND PARTY  Please check if the following objectives/activities were achieved in Session 10.  __ 1. Review Session #9 and Home Activity __ 2. Activity #1: Preparing for Future Challenges __ 3. Group Discussion: Remembering the FRIENDS Plan __ 4. Activity #2: The Quiz Game __ 5. Activity #3: Sharing ?Positives? __ 6. Present Certificates and Reward __ 7. Return Home Activities __ 8. Assign Home Activity __ 9. Party to celebrate new skills learned  Songs included in this session (if any): ____________________________________  Storybooks included in this session (if any): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Did you supplement this session with any activities from the TEACHER RESOURCE KIT (circle one)?   Y      N   Delivery of Session 10 activities/lessons: __ Delivered once during the week __ Delivered as two half-sessions  __ Delivered three or more times (activities spread through the week)   Total delivery time of Session 10:  ________ minutes (approx).  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0074137/manifest

Comment

Related Items