Search results

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study tested a model of individual, familial, and peer variables that additively and synergistically increased or decreased the risk for sexual and teen dating violence based on bullying experiences in early adolescence. The study surveyed 1,162 students from three cohorts in four Midwestern middle schools, who were then followed into three high schools. Five waves of surveys collected information about the level of violence in student homes with parents and siblings or with other children, physical abuse, sexual abuse, exposure to domestic violence, frequency of bullying, self-reported delinquency, and exposure to delinquent friends during the middle school years. Waves six and seven were collected during high school and sexual violence and teen dating violence measures were added to the surveys.

This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis documents the magnitude and significance of longitudinal associations between impulsivity and school violence to advance understanding of root causes of school violence perpetration and victimization. The research team also tested which methods and measures of assessing impulsivity are most predictive of subsequent school violence and the extent to which the predictive validity of impulsivity for school violence generalizes across various contexts and samples.

The data, syntax and review protocol for this study are available for download.

Project SOARS (Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety) utilized a mixed-methods study design to develop and test a student-centered and technology-driven school safety framework to address peer victimization, violent behavior, and student reluctance to share critical safety information within high school settings. SOARS was a project of IRIS Media, Inc. and consisted of 4 phases implemented between 2016 and 2020. Activities for each phase were carried out in Oregon and Illinois high schools in order to facilitate inter-site replication of outcomes. Phase 1 was conducted in 2016 and consisted of focus groups and key informant interviews with students, school personnel, and parents to gather perceptions of current school safety practices. Phase 2 was undertaken in 2017 and asked students, school personnel, and parents to assess the acceptability and usability of prototypes of the SOARS framework. The SOARS framework consisted of (a) the Advocatr mobile app, which allowed students to report positive and negative behaviors in their school environment; (b) a 9-week curriculum engaging students with the concepts of student ownership of school safety, advocacy/self-advocacy, physical and emotional safety, and restorative conflict resolution; (c) informational briefs for school personnel and parents about the framework components and their rationale; and (d) guidelines for a student-led school-wide safety campaign. Phase 3 was rolled out in 2018 and 2019 and consisted of feasibility testing conducted with a small subset of teachers and students in those teachers' classrooms. Participants were surveyed before and after implementation of the SOARS framework. The focus of the feasibility test was on student access and use of the Advocatr app and the accompanying curriculum. During Phase 4 implementation in 2019 and 2020, researchers conducted a pilot test with students, school personnel, and parents from 4 high schools, 2 assigned to the intervention and 2 to the control condition. The focus of the pilot was to test the effectiveness of the SOARS framework.

Demographic information was collected from all informants and includes gender (sex male or female; transgender identification), ethnicity, and race. Additional demographic information about students includes sexual orientation, approximate age (over/under 18 years), primary language, GPA, and grade. Parent demographics also include education level and student's grade, while school personnel (teachers and staff) also provided information regarding education level, school role, job title, years in current position, grades taught, and subjects taught.

Users should note that qualitative data collected during phase 1 focus groups and phase 2 user acceptance tests are not included in version 1 of the ICPSR release. Additionally, in the quantitative datasets, character variables featuring open-ended string responses have been masked by ICPSR. This study will be updated at a later date to include qualitative data files and character variables in the quantitative datasets.

This study is driven by the hypothesis that intervention and prevention programs to address violence and bullying in general, and cyberbullying in particular, can affect students' cyberbullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. Cyberbullying can occur throughout a student's day via various information and communication technologies. Thus, school administrators, teachers, and researchers have a unique opportunity to implement prevention programs that will, in addition to reducing toxic behavior, increase students' academic achievement, attendance, and rates of high school graduation. The researchers used meta-analytic techniques, such as combining all available effect sizes using robust variance estimation, to determine program effects. Specifically, the team answered the following questions:

1. What is the overall impact of anti-cyberbullying, traditional anti-bullying, anti-violence, and school-climate intervention and prevention programming on cyberbullying perpetration and victimization?
2. Are there certain program characteristics, types, or genres that are ineffective at producing meaningful changes in students' cyberbullying behaviors?
3. Are there additional characteristics of the primary studies' methodologies, measurements, or samples that significantly and meaningfully moderate the intervention effect size?
4. Do the programs have an impact on secondary outcomes, such as traditional bullying perpetration and student achievement?