Bully Survey

1. Abstract

The Bully Survey – Student Version (BYS-S), originally conceptualized and validated by Dr. Susan M. Swearer and colleagues (Swearer & Cary, 2003; Swearer et al., 2008), stands as one of the most comprehensive, ecologically grounded self-report assessment batteries in school psychology and developmental psychopathology. Designed to capture the multifaceted, dynamic nature of peer victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences across late childhood and adolescence (grades 4 through 12), the BYS-S diverges from unidimensional checklists by operationalizing bullying as an ecological, systemic phenomenon occurring across a continuum. The instrument is partitioned into four primary functional modules: Part A: Victimization Experiences, Part B: Bystander/Witness Experiences, Part C: Bully Perpetration Experiences, and Part D: Perceptions, Attitudes, and Demographic Variables.

Methodologically, the BYS-S integrates nominal filter questions, spatial and contextual mapping, multi-categorical attribution indices, and ordinal frequency rating scales. Standard frequency metrics utilize a 5-point Likert-type format ranging from 0 (Never happened) to 4 (Always happened), alongside an appraisal scale assessing the degree of personal impairment from 0 (Never a problem) to 4 (Always a problem). Attitudes toward bullying in Part D are assessed via a 5-point agreement scale spanning from Totally false to Totally true. Psychometric investigations across diverse middle and high school cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding .80 for the primary empirical subscales (ranging from .81 to .89 across victimization and perpetration composites). Construct validity is confirmed through strong convergent associations with depressive symptomatology, generalized anxiety, externalizing behaviors, and school avoidance, alongside distinct factor structures identified through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The BYS-S remains an indispensable diagnostic and evaluative tool for researchers, school psychologists, and intervention developers dedicated to mapping school climate and curbing peer aggression.

2. Keywords

Bully Survey, BYS-S, Bullying Perpetration, Peer Victimization, Bystander Intervention, School Climate, Ecological Systems Theory, Adolescent Aggression, Psychometrics, Susan M. Swearer

3. Authors

The Bully Survey – Student Version was developed by a collaborative research consortium led by:

• Susan M. Swearer, Ph.D., LP, ABPP — Willa Cather Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Director of the Empowerment Initiative; Co-Director of the Bullying Research Network (BRNET). Dr. Swearer is an internationally renowned scholar in school psychology, adolescent social-emotional development, and anti-bullying intervention.
• Paulette Tam Cary, Ph.D. — University of Nebraska–Lincoln; clinical and school psychology researcher investigating developmental trajectories across the bully/victim continuum.
• Rhonda K. Turner, Ph.D. — University of Nebraska–Lincoln; co-investigator focusing on adolescent peer relationships and gender differences in victimization.
• Jami E. Givens, M.A. — University of Nebraska–Lincoln; research contributor on social-cognitive factors in adolescent aggression.
• William S. Pollack, Ph.D. — Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Director of the Centers for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital; leading expert on gender socialization, male adolescent mental health, and violence prevention.

Primary Developer Contact Information:
Susan M. Swearer, Ph.D.
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
40 Teachers College Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0345, USA
Telephone: (402) 472-1741 | Email: [email protected]

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Bully Survey – Student Version (BYS-S) is to furnish educational institutions, behavioral health clinicians, and developmental researchers with a nuanced, multi-informant assessment battery capable of deciphering the complex web of school-based peer aggression. Unlike historical measurement paradigms that categorized youth into static, dichotomous typologies (such as purely “bullies” versus purely “victims”), the BYS-S was purposefully engineered to capture the dynamic, transactional, and contextual realities of peer maltreatment. It recognizes that adolescents can occupy concurrent or fluid roles along the bully/victim continuum, acting as victims in one context, bystanders in another, and perpetrators under alternate social configurations.

From a clinical and school-based intervention perspective, the instrument serves several pivotal diagnostic functions:

• Prevalence and Role Identification: It precisely establishes the prevalence rates of students categorized as un-involved youth, pure victims, pure bullies, and bully-victims (those who both perpetrate and experience maltreatment, a subgroup historically recognized as carrying the highest psychiatric morbidity).
• Behavioral Topography and Modality Mapping: The BYS-S captures specific manifestations of aggressive conduct across verbal (e.g., name-calling, teasing), relational/social (e.g., social exclusion, spreading rumors, ostracism), physical (e.g., shoving, attacking, property destruction), and electronic/cyber vectors (e.g., text messaging, online harassment).
• Environmental and Spatial Hotspot Detection: By systematically querying the physical and digital venues where peer victimization transpires (such as hallways, bathrooms, school buses, cafeteria, gym, homeroom, and cyberspace), the survey provides school administrators with actionable environmental data to allocate adult supervision and modify architectural surveillance.
• Cognitive Attributions and Peer Perceptions: A major theoretical breakthrough of the BYS-S is its deep exploration of causal attributions—the underlying reasons why respondents believe they or their peers were targeted (e.g., physical appearance, perceived sexual orientation, academic standing, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family background, or neurodivergence).
• Institutional Responsiveness Evaluation: The survey rigorously appraises systemic ecology by inquiring whether educators, staff, and parents were cognizant of the bullying, how effectively authorities intervened, whether the target could enact self-defense, and whether family-based victimization intersects with school maltreatment.

In research applications, the BYS-S serves as a benchmark metric for evaluating the efficacy of socio-emotional learning (SEL) curricula, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), and school-wide anti-bullying initiatives. Its comprehensive inclusion within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Compendium of Assessment Tools highlights its status as an internationally accepted, psychometrically validated standard for violence prevention science.

5. Psychological Construct

The BYS-S operationalizes peer bullying and victimization not as isolated behavioral outbursts, but as complex, socially situated constructs defined by intentionality, temporal repetition, and a pronounced power imbalance. According to Swearer and Cary (2003), bullying involves repeated aggressive actions intentionally directed against a peer who experiences marked difficulty defending him- or herself due to asymmetric physical, social, emotional, or institutional resources.

The survey deconstructs this global phenomenon into distinct psychological and behavioral dimensions:

Direct and Indirect Victimization

Victimization encompasses both direct modalities—overt physical assaults (e.g., pushing, shoving, physical attacks, property destruction) and face-to-face verbal degradation (e.g., derogatory name-calling, direct threats)—and indirect or relational modalities. Relational victimization specifically targets the victim’s peer network, social standing, and feelings of belonging through covert mechanisms such as malicious gossip, clandestine mockery, group-enforced ostracism, and electronic disparagement. The BYS-S measures both the frequency of these behaviors and the respondent’s subjective functional impairment across affective, cognitive, academic, and somatic realms (such as feeling sick, experiencing profound sadness, school refusal, and family conflict).

Bullying Perpetration

Perpetration captures an individual’s proactive or reactive deployment of physical, verbal, or socio-relational power to inflict distress or assert dominance over another youth. The BYS-S assesses the behavioral breadth and frequency of these perpetration tactics, tracking whether aggression is driven by instrumental dominance, peer-group conformity, or emotional dysregulation. It evaluates the relational dynamics between perpetrator and target, including demographic differentials (e.g., age, gender, grade level) and perceived power disparities (e.g., popularity, physical strength, cognitive ability).

Bystander Observation and Coping

Bystander experiences represent the socio-observational dimension of bullying. Research in social psychology underscores that the overwhelming majority of bullying episodes occur in the presence of peer witnesses. The BYS-S measures bystander frequency, the psychological fallout experienced by witnesses (e.g., vicarious trauma, heightened anxiety, school dissatisfaction), and behavioral responses, distinguishing between passive witness behavior, adult reporting, and direct intervention on behalf of the victim.

Attitudinal Endorsement and Cognitive Structuring

Part D evaluates the normative cognitive architecture that either sustains or mitigates bullying cultures. This dimension encompasses cognitive constructs such as victim-blaming attributions (e.g., believing victims “ask for it” or that bullying is “good for wimpy kids”), moral disengagement, empathy toward targeted peers, perceived social utility and popularity of bullies, fear of school-based aggressors, and perceptions of institutional accountability. These items tap into the latent peer norms that dictate whether a school climate promotes prosocial allyship or tolerates aggressive dominance.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Bully Survey – Student Version is anchored within three complementary psychological paradigms: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, and Cognitive Attribution Theory.

Socio-Ecological Model of Youth Aggression

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model posits that individual human development is shaped by the reciprocal interactions between an individual and their nested environmental ecosystems: the microsystem (immediate contexts such as peer groups, classroom, family, and online spaces), the mesosystem (interactions between microsystems, such as teacher-parent communication regarding peer abuse), the exosystem (broader educational policies, neighborhood dynamics), and the macrosystem (cultural ideologies regarding masculinity, dominance, and social hierarchy). Swearer and colleagues (2003, 2008) adapted this paradigm directly into the BYS-S by refusing to treat bullying as an intrapsychic defect of the individual child. Instead, the survey systematically examines microsystemic contexts (classrooms, school buses, hallways, sports fields, home environments) and mesosystemic bridges (educator intervention, parental awareness, family bullying overlap), capturing how systemic failure across these layers amplifies vulnerability or perpetuation.

Social Cognitive Theory and Moral Disengagement

Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory underscores that social behaviors are acquired and maintained through observational learning, vicarious reinforcement, and self-regulatory cognitive mechanisms. Within bullying contexts, youth often utilize moral disengagement mechanisms—such as moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, and attribution of blame—to perpetrate or passively observe cruelty without experiencing self-condemnation. Part D of the BYS-S directly operationalizes these cognitive distortions, querying the degree to which respondents endorse beliefs that minimize victim suffering (e.g., “Being bullied is no big deal”) or legitimize maltreatment (e.g., “Most people who get bullied ask for it”).

Attribution Theory

Bernard Weiner’s attributional model highlights how individuals interpret the causes of interpersonal events, influencing subsequent emotional states and behavioral trajectories. Targets of bullying who formulate internal, stable, and uncontrollable causal attributions (e.g., believing they are targeted because their physical appearance, ethnicity, or core identity is defective) exhibit significantly higher levels of clinical depression, social withdrawal, and learned helplessness. Conversely, externalizing or unstable attributions may foster proactive coping or reactive hostility. The BYS-S’s extensive inventory of 32 causal attributions provides an empirical framework for deciphering how youth assign meaning to victimization experiences.

7. Validity

The Bully Survey – Student Version has undergone extensive psychometric evaluation across diverse educational and developmental cohorts, demonstrating robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity for the BYS-S was initially established through comprehensive pilot testing, cognitive interviewing with middle and high school students, and expert panel reviews by developmental psychopathologists and school psychologists (Swearer & Cary, 2003; Swearer et al., 2008). The distinction between direct forms of aggression (physical intimidation, verbal harassment) and indirect forms (relational exclusion, covert manipulation) has been repeatedly corroborated across exploratory and confirmatory factor models. The CDC Compendium of Assessment Tools independently reviewed the BYS-S, confirming that its items demonstrate high content coverage of the standard federal definition of bullying: intentionality, repetition, and differential power imbalance.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Empirical studies utilizing the BYS-S have established powerful convergent correlations with standardized instruments measuring psychological distress and socio-emotional dysfunction:

• Internalizing Distress: Scores on the BYS-S Victimization subscale demonstrate statistically significant positive correlations with the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) (coefficients typically ranging between $r = .42$ and $r = .56$, $p < .001$) and the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) ($r = .38$ to $.51$, $p < .001$). Target youth reporting high impairment on BYS-S Part A items consistently manifest elevated clinical markers of social phobia and generalized distress.
• Externalizing Problems: The BYS-S Bullying Perpetration subscale correlates robustly with externalizing subscales of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) Youth Self-Report (YSR), yielding strong associations with rule-breaking behavior ($r = .46$, $p < .001$) and aggressive behavior composites ($r = .58$, $p < .001$).
• Bully-Victim Subgroup Validation: The instrument demonstrates divergent validity by isolating the distinct behavioral profile of “bully-victims”. Individuals scoring above clinical thresholds on both Part A and Part C manifest the highest aggregate scores on emotional dysregulation, hyperactivity, and poor academic performance, statistically distinguishing them from pure bullies and pure victims in multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA).

Predictive and Ecological Validity

Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies indicate that the BYS-S reliably predicts objective school indicators, including chronic absenteeism, disciplinary referrals, drop-out ideation, and grade point average (GPA) decline. Furthermore, Swearer et al. (2008) established predictive validity regarding specialized victimization typologies (e.g., homophobic bullying), demonstrating that youth targeted with anti-gay epithets—regardless of actual sexual orientation—reported significantly heightened psychological trauma, depressive distress, and diminished school connectedness relative to peers experiencing generalized teasing.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the BYS-S has been evaluated through multiple classical test theory paradigms, focusing predominantly on internal consistency and short-term stability.

Internal Consistency

The behavioral frequency items within the primary modules display consistently high internal consistency metrics across adolescent samples:

• Victimization Subscale (Part A): Composed of the 11 specific behavioral manifestations (items 2a through 2k), this dimension consistently yields a Cronbach’s alpha ranging between $\alpha = .83$ and $\alpha = .89$ in middle school and high school populations. Composite indices incorporating functional impairment (item 4) maintain alphas of $\alpha = .84$ to $.88$.
• Bullying Perpetration Subscale (Part C): The perpetration items (items 2a through 2k) demonstrate strong internal consistency, with alpha coefficients typically falling between $\alpha = .81$ and $\alpha = .87$. Despite the inherent positive skewness associated with admitting to perpetration, the scale demonstrates robust item-total correlations (generally exceeding $r_{it} = .45$).
• Attitudes and Beliefs Subscale (Part D): The 14-item attitudinal scale measuring cognitive justification, victim-blaming, and empathy yields an overall internal consistency coefficient ranging from $\alpha = .78$ to $\alpha = .84$. When separated into pro-bullying attitudes versus anti-bullying/empathic beliefs, the sub-dimensions exhibit alphas of $.76$ and $.81$, respectively.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Given that bullying behaviors are dynamic and sensitive to environmental changes, school interventions, and disciplinary actions, test-retest reliability is typically evaluated across brief intervals (2 to 4 weeks). Over a two-week interval, the BYS-S behavioral frequency scales demonstrate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from $.74$ to $.83$, confirming that while episodic occurrences fluctuate, individual reporting patterns of chronic victimization and perpetration remain stable over short assessment horizons.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted across diverse student samples have validated the dimensional architecture of the BYS-S behavioral and attitudinal inventories.

Structural Analysis of Victimization and Perpetration

When subjecting the 11 behavioral items of Part A (Victimization) and Part C (Perpetration) to principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with oblique (Promax) rotation, a clear two-factor or three-factor structure emerges, depending on sample developmental maturity:

• Factor 1: Overt / Physical Aggression: Defined by strong primary loadings from items tapping direct physical confrontation and property violation, including “Attacked me” (loadings $lambda = .72$ to $.81$), “Pushed or shoved me” ($lambda = .68$ to $.79$), “Broke my things” ($lambda = .61$ to $.70$), and “Said they will do bad things to me” ($lambda = .55$ to $.67$).
• Factor 2: Relational / Social Exclusion: Defined by robust loadings from items capturing covert interpersonal manipulation, including “Won’t let me be a part of their group” ($lambda = .65$ to $.78$), “Nobody would talk to me” ($lambda = .64$ to $.76$), “Said mean things behind my back” ($lambda = .58$ to $.71$), and “Wrote bad things about me” ($lambda = .52$ to $.65$).
• Factor 3: Direct Verbal Teasing: Marked by substantial loadings from “Called me names” ($lambda = .74$ to $.83$) and “Made fun of me” ($lambda = .71$ to $.80$), which frequently cross-load onto overt aggression in younger cohorts but separate into a distinct verbal factor among older adolescents.

Confirmatory Factor Fit Indices

In structural equation modeling (SEM) and CFA validations across large cohorts ($N > 1,200$), the multidimensional structure exhibits excellent fit indices when direct physical, verbal, and relational forms are modeled as distinct yet correlated first-order factors under a higher-order latent victimization/perpetration construct:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely exceed $.94$, indicating exceptional fit to the empirical data.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Coefficients regularly surpass $.92$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates consistently range from $.042$ to $.056$ ($90% \text{ CI } [0.035, 0.063]$), well below the conventional $.06$ threshold for adequate model specification.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values average between $.038$ and $.048$.

Similarly, factor analysis of Part D reveals two stable latent factors: Normative Acceptance of Bullying (victim-blaming, belief that bullying builds character) and Empathic Concern / Prosocial Disapproval (recognition of victim distress, belief that authorities should intervene).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Bully Survey – Student Version (BYS-S) is an ecologically structured, multi-component self-report instrument. It is organized into four designated modules, each serving an independent yet interconnected evaluative function.

Test Structure and Administration

• Target Population: Elementary, middle, and high school students spanning Grade 4 through Grade 12 (approximate ages 9 to 18 years).
• Administration Format: Group-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital/online survey. Can be administered in classroom settings, guidance suites, or psychological clinics.
• Estimated Completion Time: 25 to 40 minutes for the full battery. When branch logic is applied digitally, students who are not involved skip detailed follow-up sections, reducing completion time to 15 to 20 minutes.
• Module Overview:
  • Part A: Victimization: Initial binary gatekeeper filter question (“Have you been bullied this school year?”), frequency metric, spatial checklist (14 venues + primary location), 11 behavioral frequency items, perpetrator demographic checklist, 6 functional problem items, 32-item attribution inventory, and institutional evaluation items (teacher awareness, staff intervention quality, parent awareness, home victimization overlap).
  • Part B: Bystander Experiences: Gatekeeper filter question (“Did you ever see a student other than yourself who was bullied this school year?”), frequency metric, spatial checklist, 11 behavioral observation items, perpetrator identity checklist, 6 personal distress items, 32-item attribution inventory, institutional awareness items, and student intervention narrative.
  • Part C: Bully Perpetration: Gatekeeper filter question (“Did you ever bully anyone this school year?”), frequency metric, spatial checklist, 11 behavioral perpetration items, target identity checklist, 6 personal problem items, 32-item attribution inventory, and institutional knowledge items.
  • Part D: Perceptions, Attitudes, and Demographics: 14 attitudinal statements evaluated on a 5-point agreement scale, school-wide problem evaluations, perceived longitudinal change, open-ended qualitative prompts, and comprehensive demographic indices (home language, family origin, gender, age, race/ethnicity, grade, and academic report card grades).

Response Scales and Scoring Algorithms

• Behavioral Frequency Metric (Part A2, Part B2, Part C2):
  • Never happened = 0 points
  • Rarely happened = 1 point
  • Sometimes happened = 2 points
  • Often happened = 3 points
  • Always happened = 4 points
• Functional Problem / Personal Distress Metric (Part A4, Part B4, Part C4):
  • Never a problem = 0 points
  • Rarely a problem = 1 point
  • Sometimes problem = 2 points
  • Often a problem = 3 points
  • Always a problem = 4 points
• Attitudinal Agreement Scale (Part D1):
  • Totally false = 1 point
  • Sort of false = 2 points
  • Both true and false = 3 points
  • Sort of true = 4 points
  • Totally true = 5 points
• CDC Compendium Empirical Subscale Derivations:
  • Victimization Subscale: Derived from assigned behavioral items measuring overt and covert victim experiences (Items 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, and 30 in standardized research batteries; scored 0–4 per item).
  • Bully Perpetration Subscale: Derived from perpetration items (Items 8, 12, 20, 26, and 28; scored 0–4 per item).
  • Perceived Peer Perception Subscales: Parallel subscales measuring student attributions and peer standing across victimization (Items 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 29) and perpetration (Items 7, 11, 19, 25, 27).
• Typological Role Classification:
  • Pure Victim: High endorsement on Part A ($ge 1$ standard deviation above normative mean or response of $ge \text{“Sometimes”}$ on multiple behaviors), low Part C.
  • Pure Bully: High endorsement on Part C, low Part A.
  • Bully-Victim: Elevated scores exceeding thresholds on both Part A and Part C.
  • Uninvolved / Prosocial Bystander: Low scores on Parts A and C; varying bystander actions on Part B.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Bully Survey – Student Version was originally developed and published in 2003 by Dr. Susan M. Swearer and Dr. Paulette Tam Cary, with expanded psychometric validation and specialized adaptations published in 2008 by Dr. Swearer, Rhonda K. Turner, Jami E. Givens, and Dr. William S. Pollack. The survey was developed under research projects conducted at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in collaboration with Creighton Preparatory School.

Licensing and Accessibility: The BYS-S is classified as an open-access, public domain assessment tool for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research purposes. It was notably compiled and released in the federal public domain via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Compendium of Assessment Tools: Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences (pages 69–78). There are no licensing fees, test purchase costs, or royalty requirements for schools or independent academic researchers administering the measure.

Permissions and Adaptations: Researchers and practitioners wishing to administer, translate, or adapt the BYS-S are expected to cite the original authors appropriately and are encouraged to notify Dr. Susan M. Swearer at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln ([email protected]) regarding empirical studies or institutional implementations.

12. References

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45–103). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Hamburger, M. E., Vivolo, A. M., & O’Malley, T. L. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullycompendiumbk-a.pdf

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.

Swearer, S. M., & Cary, P. T. (2003). Perceptions and attitudes toward bullying in middle school youth: A developmental examination across the bully/victim continuum. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n02_05

Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_02

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., & Napolitano, S. A. (2009). Bullying prevention and intervention: Realistic strategies for schools. Guilford Press.

Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen-Frerichs, L. A., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of work in progress. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 305–327). Routledge.

Swearer, S. M., Turner, R. K., Givens, J. E., & Pollack, W. S. (2008). “You’re so gay!”: Do different forms of bullying matter for adolescent males? School Psychology Review, 37(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087801

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)