Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ)

Abstract

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ) is a standardized psychometric assessment instrument developed by educational psychologist Ken Rigby and counseling psychologist Sheri Bauman to systematically evaluate the intervention strategies, behavioral propensities, and professional decision-making frameworks that educators, school counselors, and educational administrators utilize when addressing peer victimization and school bullying. Bullying in school settings represents a persistent socio-ecological issue characterized by repeated aggressive behavior, an intentional desire to inflict harm or distress, and an asymmetric imbalance of power between the perpetrator and the target. The HBQ operationalizes educator intervention responses across 22 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response continuum ranging from 5 (I definitely Would) to 1 (I definitely would not).

Extensive psychometric investigations have identified five primary behavioral dimensions underlying the instrument: (a) Working with the Victim, which assesses pedagogical efforts to empower targets through assertiveness coaching and strategic counsel; (b) Working with the Bully, encompassing restorative practices, mediation, empathy-building, and conflict-resolution strategies; (c) Ignoring the Incident, reflecting dismissive, avoidant, or non-interventionist attitudes that leave conflict resolution entirely to the peer group; (d) Enlisting Other Adults, which measures multi-systemic collaboration across colleagues, student support services, school administration, and caregivers; and (e) Disciplining the Bully, capturing punitive, retributive, and zero-tolerance disciplinary sanctions. Across diverse international validation cohorts in Australia, the United States, and Europe, internal consistency indices (Cronbach’s alpha) have ranged from moderate to satisfactory across subscales (e.g., .45 to .75 in Bauman et al., 2008). The HBQ provides empirical researchers, school psychologists, and teacher educators with a robust diagnostic and evaluative tool for auditing school climate, analyzing professional development needs, and identifying discrepancies between institutional anti-bullying policies and actual classroom practices.

Keywords

Handling Bullying Questionnaire, school bullying, peer victimization, teacher intervention, school counseling, school climate, restorative practices, zero-tolerance discipline, educational psychology, psychometrics

Authors

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire was developed through the collaborative scholarship of two leading international figures in school violence prevention and school psychology:

• Ken Rigby, Ph.D.: Adjunct Research Professor in the School of Education at the University of South Australia. Dr. Rigby is globally recognized as a pioneering researcher in peer relations, school bullying etiology, and non-punitive intervention methodologies, notably authoring foundational texts on the Method of Shared Concern and the Support Group Method.
• Sheri Bauman, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the University of Arizona. Dr. Bauman has published extensively on school counseling, peer victimization, cyberbullying, and educator professional development regarding proactive intervention in youth violence.
• Kathleen Hoppa, M.A.: Educational researcher and collaborator on empirical validation trials examining cross-national differences between United States teachers and certified school counselors.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ) is to quantify, categorize, and critically evaluate the intervention approaches school personnel intend to deploy upon encountering acute incidents of peer victimization. Despite widespread administrative mandates requiring schools to implement anti-bullying policies, substantial variance persists in how individual frontline professionals respond to specific classroom or playground bullying scenarios. Research consistently demonstrates that when educators fail to intervene, respond dismissively, or rely excessively on ineffective punitive mechanisms, peer victimization escalates, student psychological distress intensifies, and trust in institutional safety erodes.

In clinical and educational practice, the HBQ fulfills several critical functions:

• Diagnostic Assessment of Educator Readiness: The scale enables school districts to benchmark staff predilections, identifying whether educators lean predominantly toward restorative intervention, administrative referral, target empowerment, or non-intervention.
• Curriculum Design for Professional Development: By highlighting subscale trends across instructional faculties, school psychologists can tailor targeted in-service training that addresses deficits (e.g., high scores on Ignoring the Incident or low utilization of restorative Working with the Bully techniques).
• Comparative Professional Research: The HBQ illuminates functional differences in intervention philosophies across professional roles—such as contrasting the systemic, counseling-oriented responses of professional school counselors with the disciplinary or punitive orientations of classroom educators or deans of discipline.
• Evaluation of Anti-Bullying Program Implementation: Longitudinal administrations of the HBQ permit researchers to assess whether training in evidence-based prevention programs (e.g., the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, KiVa, or Restorative Justice frameworks) produces measurable shifts from retributive sanctions to collaborative, restorative strategies.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the HBQ is Educator Intervention Strategy in Bullying Situations. Bullying intervention behavior is a multi-dimensional construct governed by cognitive appraisals, professional self-efficacy, normative beliefs about adolescent aggression, and systemic institutional expectations. Rather than measuring a unidimensional tendency toward high or low intervention, the HBQ assesses five distinct qualitative modalities through which adults engage with peer conflict.

1. Working with the Victim

This dimension assesses strategies focused directly on empowering the targeted student. Rooted in individual agency and social skills paradigms, this approach includes counseling the target to exhibit behavioral assertiveness, advising them to verbally confront the perpetrator (e.g., demanding they “back off”), and coaching them to display non-verbal resilience to prevent being perceived as easily intimidated. While well-intentioned, psychometric inquiries highlight that heavy reliance on this dimension can occasionally border on inadvertent victim-blaming if unaccompanied by systemic adult protection.

2. Working with the Bully

This subscale evaluates educational and restorative practices directed toward the perpetrator. It captures non-punitive, cognitive-behavioral, and humanistic interventions designed to cultivate empathy, raise personal accountability, and facilitate positive behavioral alternatives. Representative behaviors include discussing alternative constructive choices with the bully, helping them build authentic self-esteem without coercive dominance, and convening collaborative problem-solving circles where perpetrators are guided to acknowledge the distress of their peers.

3. Ignoring the Incident

Capturing the non-interventionist spectrum, this dimension assesses tendencies to minimize peer aggression, treat incidents lightly, direct students to “grow up,” or abdicate adult responsibility by leaving the dispute for students to sort out autonomously. High scores on this dimension reflect either acute deficits in intervention self-efficacy, normalization of bullying as benign developmental banter, or professional burnout.

4. Enlisting Other Adults

This dimension measures systemic and ecological mobilization. Recognizing that bullying is fundamentally an ecological and relational phenomenon, this subscale captures behaviors where the educator accesses institutional multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). This includes conferring with peer educators, formally referring incidents to school counselors or building administrators, and establishing direct communication with the parents or legal guardians of the targeted student and the perpetrator.

5. Disciplining the Bully

Reflecting traditional behaviorist and legalistic paradigms, this subscale measures immediate punitive and coercive enforcement. Items capture authoritative commands demanding the behavior cease immediately, explicit warnings that bullying will not be tolerated, and deliberate efforts to ensure the perpetrator receives punitive sanctions. This strategy aims to deter future misconduct through swift negative consequences, although contemporary evidence suggests that punitive responses alone rarely foster long-term empathetic behavior.

Theoretical Framework

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire is theoretically anchored in the intersection of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986), Social-Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and contemporary restorative justice paradigms in educational environments.

Within Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological model, bullying is not merely an isolated dyadic exchange between an aggressor and a target; rather, it is a dynamic systemic transaction maintained by microsystemic interactions involving peers, educators, school climate, and home environments. The educator functions as an authoritative microsystemic regulator. How an educator responds establishes explicit and implicit social norms regarding behavioral acceptability. If an educator exhibits an Ignoring the Incident behavioral profile, the microsystemic normative climate tacitly permits coercive aggression, signaling to bystanders that intervention is futile.

From the perspective of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, an educator’s choice of strategy is governed by self-efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. Educators select strategies they believe they have the skills to execute effectively and that will achieve desirable outcomes without escalating retaliation. Highly efficacy-competent educators possess the cognitive flexibility to employ nuanced relational techniques (Working with the Bully), whereas low-efficacy or time-constrained educators frequently default either to avoidance (Ignoring the Incident) or administrative abdication (Enlisting Other Adults).

Furthermore, the HBQ operationalizes the ideological tension between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice. Retributive justice frameworks posit that transgression demands formal punishment to restore moral equilibrium. In contrast, restorative justice paradigms prioritize repairing harm, understanding emotional impacts, restoring fractured relationships, and reintegrating the aggressor through developmental support rather than institutional exclusion.

Validity

Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire have been established across multiple empirical investigations in the United States, Australia, and diverse international educational systems.

Construct and Criterion Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s ability to differentiate distinct educator profiles based on professional training, gender, and school role. In the benchmark study conducted by Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008), the HBQ demonstrated clear discriminant capability between certified school counselors and general classroom teachers:

• School counselors scored significantly higher than teachers on Working with the Bully and Working with the Victim, reflecting specialized clinical preparation in relational mediation and empathetic counseling.
• Classroom teachers exhibited significantly higher endorsements of Disciplining the Bully and administrative referrals compared to counseling professionals.
• Both professional groups displayed consistently low scores on Ignoring the Incident, confirming the construct validity of modern educational accountability expectations.

Convergent and Predictive Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated through correlations with standardized measures of educator empathy, attitudes toward peer victimization, and perceptions of school climate. Rigby and Bauman (2007, 2010) reported that educator empathy (measured via standardized interpersonal reactivity scales) correlated positively with Working with the Bully ($r = .34, p < .01$) and negatively with Ignoring the Incident ($r = -.41, p < .001$). Predictive validity was demonstrated in longitudinal observations of school environments: schools characterized by high faculty endorsement of restorative problem-solving strategies exhibited significant subsequent reductions in student-reported peer victimization rates compared to schools reliant almost exclusively on punitive zero-tolerance measures.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the HBQ have been rigorously investigated across varied school professional samples. In the foundational validation trial by Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008), which surveyed 738 educators and school counselors across the United States, the subscales demonstrated the following Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients:

• Working with the Victim: $lpha = .75$ (indicating acceptable internal consistency)
• Working with the Bully: $lpha = .69$ (bordering the acceptable threshold for exploratory behavioral subscales)
• Ignoring the Incident: $lpha = .70$ (indicating acceptable internal consistency)
• Enlisting Other Adults: $lpha = .63$ (reflecting moderate internal consistency)
• Disciplining the Bully: $lpha = .45$ (reflecting low internal consistency)

The lower internal consistency observed for the Disciplining the Bully subscale ($lpha = .45$) has been extensively addressed in psychometric literature. This attenuation is primarily attributable to the multidimensional nature of disciplinary actions—ranging from verbal reprimands to systemic administrative sanctions—and the relatively small number of items indexing this specific factor. Subsequent international studies using extended or revised iterations have reported improved reliability indices ranging from .68 to .82 across all dimensions when contextualized with specific behavioral vignettes. Test-retest reliability evaluated across a 4-week interval yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging between .72 and .84, confirming substantial temporal stability in educator intervention propensities.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the 22-item Handling Bullying Questionnaire was established through classical Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring and oblique (Promax/Oblimin) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that intervention strategies correlate within educational settings.

Exploratory Factor Solutions

Initial factor extractions conducted by Rigby (2006) and Bauman et al. (2008) examined eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 (Kaiser’s criterion) alongside Cattell’s scree test evaluation. A robust 5-factor solution emerged, accounting for over 52% of the cumulative variance across the item pool:

• Factor 1: Working with the Victim — Strong primary factor loadings (.52 to .78) for items 6, 11, 17, and 22, indexing assertiveness and self-protection guidance.
• Factor 2: Working with the Bully — High primary factor loadings (.46 to .73) for items 5, 9, 12, 19, and 21, capturing restorative communication, mediation, and self-esteem enhancement.
• Factor 3: Ignoring the Incident — Salient factor loadings (.54 to .79) for items 2, 8, 10, 16, and 18, representing non-intervention, dismissal, and deflection of responsibility.
• Factor 4: Enlisting Other Adults — Primary loadings (.48 to .71) for items 4, 13, 14, 15, and 20, representing multidisciplinary collaboration and parental involvement.
• Factor 5: Disciplining the Bully — Salient loadings (.42 to .68) for items 1, 3, and 7, reflecting direct reprimand, zero-tolerance enforcement, and formal punishment.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis models across educational cohorts have evaluated this five-factor oblique structure against unidimensional and hierarchical models. Structural equation modeling metrics have confirmed adequate construct fit for the five-factor formulation: $chi^2/df < 2.8$, Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}$) = .91 to .94, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}$) = .90 to .92, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}$) = .048 to .056 (90% CI [.042, .061]), demonstrating robust factorial validity across diverse school professional populations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration parameters of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire are outlined below:

• Instrument Name: Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ)
• Assessment Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized psychometric questionnaire
• Target Population: Certified primary, middle, and secondary school educators, professional school counselors, school social workers, and educational administrators
• Number of Items: 22 items
• Response Continuum: 5-point Likert scale formatted as follows:
  • 5 = I definitely Would
  • 4 = I probably Would
  • 3 = I’m unsure
  • 2 = I probably would not
  • 1 = I definitely would not
• Subscale Composition:
  • Working with the Victim: Items 6, 11, 17, 22
  • Working with the Bully: Items 5, 9, 12, 19, 21
  • Ignoring the Incident: Items 2, 8, 10, 16, 18
  • Enlisting Other Adults: Items 4, 13, 14, 15, 20
  • Disciplining the Bully: Items 1, 3, 7
• Scoring Protocol: Subscale raw scores are derived by calculating the mean or sum of the items corresponding to each domain. No reverse-scoring is applied; higher scores indicate greater probability of deploying that specific intervention modality. A high score on Ignoring the Incident indicates an avoidant posture, whereas high scores on Working with the Bully reflect endorsement of restorative practices.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire was formally published and cataloged in 2006 by Ken Rigby and subsequently adapted and psychometrically validated in 2007 and 2008 in conjunction with Sheri Bauman and Kathleen Hoppa. The instrument is dedicated to educational advancement and school safety research.

Licensing and Fee Structure: The HBQ is available for non-commercial academic research, institutional evaluation, and professional development without royalty fees. Academic researchers and educational institutions may utilize the measure without purchasing proprietary licensing agreements, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is formally granted to the authors (Rigby & Bauman) in all resulting publications, reports, and presentations. Prior notification and scholarly consultation can be coordinated through Professor Ken Rigby’s academic portal (www.kenrigby.net).

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2006). Handling Bullying Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.kenrigby.net/01a-Questionnaires
• Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802379085
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Rigby, K. (2006). Handling Bullying Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.kenrigby.net/
• Rigby, K., & Bauman, S. (2007). What teachers think should be done about cases of bullying. Professional Educator, 6(4), 18–22.
• Rigby, K., & Bauman, S. (2010). How school personnel tackle cases of bullying: A critical examination. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The International Handbook of School Bullying (pp. 455–468). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864968

Items of the Scale