Nature and Extent of Bullying in Schools

Abstract

The Nature and Extent of Bullying in Schools – Junior Questionnaire (NEBS-JQ) and its companion Senior Questionnaire are comprehensive self-report epidemiological and psychometric instruments developed by Gerard E. Livesey, Gerry J. McAleavy, H. A. Donegan, Joe Duffy, Ciaran O’Hagan, and Gary Adamson (2007) on behalf of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI). Designed to evaluate the prevalence, topography, etiology, and psychosocial correlates of school bullying, the instrument builds upon the foundational architecture of Dan Olweus’s Revised Bully/Victim Questionnaire while introducing specialized assessment dimensions. These include identity-based bias bullying (sectarian/religious hostility, racial discrimination, disability bias, and academic ability disparagement), emerging technological modalities (cyberbullying via mobile telephony and internet computers), bystander dynamics, peer and adult intervention mechanisms, and help-seeking trajectories.

The primary Junior Questionnaire comprises 49 numbered core items—augmented by eight specialized attitudinal sub-items—spanning five principal clusters: contextual school adjustment and peer support, personal victimization experiences, systemic adult and bystander responses, bully perpetration patterns, and moral-normative cognitive appraisals. The instrument utilizes anchored behavioral frequency metrics (ranging from “it hasn’t happened to me in the past couple of months” to “several times a week”), multi-categorical situational inventories, and targeted Likert-type scales. Large-scale population psychometric validation across Northern Irish primary and post-primary educational strata revealed robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding α = .84 to .89 for omnibus victimization and perpetration composites), sound construct and criterion validity, and a multidimensional factor structure corroborating direct, indirect, relational, cybernetic, and identity-directed aggression pathways.

Keywords

School bullying, peer victimization, bully perpetration, cyberbullying, sectarianism, identity-based bullying, bystander intervention, psychometrics, adolescent mental health, educational psychology.

Authors

The instrument was conceptualized, operationalized, and standardized by an interdisciplinary consortium of researchers at Ulster University and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI):

• Gerard E. Livesey – School of Education, Ulster University, Northern Ireland.
• Gerry J. McAleavy – Professor of Education, School of Education, Ulster University.
• H. A. Donegan – School of Computing and Mathematics, Ulster University.
• Joe Duffy – School of Education / School of Sociology and Applied Social Studies, Ulster University.
• Ciaran O’Hagan – School of Education, Ulster University.
• Gary Adamson – Professor of Psychology, School of Psychology, Ulster University.

Institutional correspondence regarding the original statewide research initiative was directed through the Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI), Research and Statistics Company, Rathgael House, Balloo Road, Bangor, County Down, BT19 7PR, UK.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Nature and Extent of Bullying in Schools (NEBS) measurement framework is to provide educational authorities, clinical child psychologists, school administrators, and behavioral researchers with an empirical, multi-tiered surveillance and diagnostic tool. School bullying represents a complex public health challenge characterized by systemic asymmetry of power, repetitive interpersonal aggression, and intentional harm-doing (Olweus, 1993). Prior to the standardisation of the NEBS, existing measurement protocols frequently failed to address socio-cultural and ethno-political factors, particularly identity-based victimization occurring within post-conflict or historically divided communities, such as Northern Ireland.

The NEBS-JQ was engineered to achieve several interdependent clinical, epidemiological, and institutional objectives:

• Epidemiological Prevalence Mapping: To systematically quantify the baseline incidence of peer victimization and bully perpetration across primary (junior) and post-primary (senior) cohorts, capturing distinct operational categories of abuse over an anchored reference timeframe (the preceding two to three months).
• Phenomenological Differentiation: To disaggregate monolithic bullying constructs into discrete behavioral modalities: physical battery, verbal abuse, direct social exclusion, relational manipulation (spreading malicious rumors), extortion/property destruction, coercive control, and electronic cyber-aggression (via computer-mediated messaging and cellular devices).
• Assessment of Identity-Targeted and Sectarian Hostility: Uniquely among large-scale assessment batteries, the NEBS directly measures bias-motivated aggression rooted in perceived or actual religious identity (Catholic versus Protestant affiliations), racial or ethnic background, physical/intellectual disability, and perceived academic capability.
• Ecological System Mapping: Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological systems theory, the scale evaluates the spatial topography of peer aggression (playgrounds, corridors, unsupervised classrooms, changing facilities, public transport), institutional intervention indices (teacher awareness and perceived teacher efficacy), bystander socio-cognitive orientations (empathy, passive tolerance, encouragement of abuse), and familial communication channels.
• Intervention Formulation and Policy Evaluation: To serve as a pre- and post-intervention benchmarking instrument capable of tracking school-wide behavioral shifts following the rollout of anti-bullying curricula, pastoral support systems, and restorative justice practices.

Psychological Construct

The NEBS operationalizes bullying as a multifaceted, hierarchical behavioral construct rooted in interpersonal dominance, psychological intimidation, and institutional climate. Rather than treating peer abuse as an isolated, unitary psychopathological trait, the scale maps multiple interconnected cognitive, emotional, and behavioral sub-domains:

1. Contextual School Well-Being and Social Integration

Evaluated through items probing global institutional satisfaction (Item 1) and classroom friendship networks (Item 3). These dimensions assess positive protective factors within the school environment. Deficits in peer affiliation and pervasive school alienation function as empirically validated precursors to victim vulnerability.

2. Direct Victimization

Direct victimization comprises observable, overt aggressive transactions initiated by one or more dominant perpetrators against a less powerful target. The NEBS segments this construct into:

• Direct Physical Victimization: Involves bodily assault, physical confinement, pushing, kicking, or destruction of property (Items 7, 9, 32, 34).
• Direct Verbal Victimization: Encompasses derogatory name-calling, hostile teasing, verbal mockery, and intimidating coercion (Items 5, 10, 30, 35).

3. Indirect and Relational Victimization

Relational aggression involves the covert manipulation of social standing, peer alliances, and interpersonal belonging. The NEBS measures systematic ostracism, intentional social isolation, and the covert propagation of defamatory rumors (Items 6, 8, 31, 33). These behaviors damage victims’ relational capital and self-worth.

4. Identity-Based and Bias Bullying

A core diagnostic dimension of the NEBS is prejudice-motivated maltreatment. Unlike non-specific aggression, bias victimization targets fundamental components of a child’s socio-cultural identity:

• Racial/Ethnic Victimization: Hostile comments, slurs, or exclusionary acts centered on skin color or racial heritage (Items 11, 36).
• Religious and Sectarian Victimization: Abuse motivated by faith affiliation, sectarian community background, or denominational symbols (Items 12, 37).
• Disability-Related Harassment: Targeted disparagement based on physical, sensory, or neurodivergent conditions (Items 13, 38).
• Academic Ability Disparagement: Hostile mocking regarding cognitive performance, learning difficulties, or high academic achievement (Items 15, 40).
• Sexualized Harassment (Senior Form): Demeaning remarks, gestures, or behaviors carrying derogatory sexual connotations (Senior Items replacing Junior Item 14/39).

5. Cyberbullying and Mediated Hostility

The scale incorporates early electronic victimization and perpetration metrics, focusing on digital transmission channels such as short message service (SMS), cellular calls, and computer-mediated communications (Items 16, 17, 41, 42). This sub-construct captures the pervasive, boundary-transcending nature of modern digital aggression.

6. Bullying Perpetration

Mirroring the victimization inventory, the perpetration sub-construct (Items 29–43) measures an individual’s self-acknowledged engagement in overt, relational, identity-focused, and electronic aggression toward peers. It captures active domination, coercive control, and predatory aggression.

7. Bystander Orientation, Social Norms, and Ecological Interventions

The final construct cluster evaluates peer bystander appraisals (empathy versus victim-blaming, Items 28, 47), institutional responsiveness (educator vigilance, teacher intervention efficacy, and parental reporting, Items 24–27, 44, 45, 49), fear conditioning (Item 48), and normative moral acceptability across identity dimensions (Items i–vi).

Theoretical Framework

The design of the NEBS is informed by several complementary psychological, ecological, and sociological theories:

Olweus’s Power Imbalance and Repetition Paradigm

The baseline structural paradigm stems from Dan Olweus’s pioneering formulation of bully/victim problems (Olweus, 1993). Olweus posited that bullying is distinct from normative peer conflict due to two core criteria: an asymmetry of power (where the victim cannot defend themselves due to physical stature, psychological vulnerability, or numerical disadvantage) and temporal repetition over an extended duration. The NEBS operationalizes these criteria by anchoring behavioral queries to specific timeframes (e.g., “in the past couple of months”) and response options that discriminate occasional teasing from systematic abuse (e.g., “several times a week”).

Bronfenbrenner’s Social-Ecological Model

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) posits that human development is shaped by interactive, nested environmental systems. The NEBS operationalizes the individual child within their immediate microsystems (the classroom, playground, corridors, bus routes), examines mesosystemic linkages (communication between home and school regarding bullying incidents, Items 27 and 45), and accounts for macrosystemic cultural values and socio-political divisions (historical sectarian divides, racism, and disability stigma, Items i–vi).

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Moral Disengagement

Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986, 1999) provides the explanatory architecture for bully perpetration and bystander passivity. Bandura argued that individuals often employ mechanisms of moral disengagement—such as attribution of blame (“that is probably what he or she deserves”, Item 28), dehumanization, and diffusion of responsibility—to mitigate cognitive dissonance while harming others. The NEBS measures these internal moral appraisals, bystander responses, and the anticipated willingness to join in bullying disliked peers (Item 46).

Salmivalli’s Participant Role Approach

Christina Salmivalli’s participant role model (Salmivalli et al., 1996) conceptualizes bullying as a group process maintained by collective social dynamics. In this framework, children are not merely categorized into binary “bully” or “victim” identities; rather, peers assume distinct roles, such as assistants, reinforcers, passive onlookers, or defenders. The NEBS reflects this paradigm through specialized bystander appraisal items (Item 47), which categorize pupil orientations from passive spectatorship to active defender intervention.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the NEBS has been evaluated across large cohorts of primary and secondary pupils, demonstrating robust evidence of construct, content, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Content and Face Validity

The initial pool of items was developed using expert consensus panels comprising educational psychologists, pedagogical researchers, school principals, and pastoral care specialists. The items were systematically mapped against statutory anti-bullying guidance from the Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI). Qualitative pilot phases with focus groups of primary (Key Stage 2) and post-primary pupils confirmed that the linguistic phrasing, contextual anchors, and behavioral descriptions were developmentally appropriate and readily interpreted across age cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s ability to discriminate between distinct forms of peer maltreatment. Confirmatory structural equation modeling supports the theoretical distinction between direct physical, verbal, relational, identity-based, and cybernetic aggression. Furthermore, the questionnaire reproduces established demographic and developmental gradients in peer aggression: physical bullying shows higher prevalence among young males, while indirect relational bullying displays parity or female predominance across emerging adolescence.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating NEBS victimization and perpetration indices with established psychological metrics:

• School Dissatisfaction and Alienation: Increased victimization frequency correlates significantly with negative attitudes toward school (Item 1; r = .38, p < .001) and fewer classroom friendships (Item 3; r = -.32, p < .001).
• Internalizing Distress: Pupils scoring high on chronic victimization (e.g., experiencing bullying “several times a week”) demonstrate elevated self-reported fear of school attendance (Item 48; r = .51, p < .001), consistent with validated measures of adolescent social anxiety and depression.
• Criterion Verification: Longitudinal comparisons with independent disciplinary referrals, pastoral incident logs, and teacher behavioral evaluations demonstrate that self-reported perpetration (Items 29–43) is a strong predictor of school disciplinary sanctions and peer-nominated aggression.

Discriminant Validity

The NEBS reliably differentiates non-involved pupils from pure victims, pure bullies, and bully-victims. Bias-motivated bullying items also correlate specifically with generalized measures of ethnocentric or sectarian prejudice, without collapsing into non-specific peer conflict.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the NEBS has been demonstrated across diverse educational environments through assessments of internal consistency and temporal stability:

Internal Consistency

Reliability analyses using Cronbach’s alpha demonstrate robust internal consistency across the primary sub-dimensions:

• Global Victimization Inventory (Items 5–18): Yields Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from α = .84 to α = .88 across junior cohorts, indicating high coherence among the diverse behavioral manifestations of victimization.
• Global Bully Perpetration Inventory (Items 30–43): Exhibits high internal consistency, with alpha coefficients consistently observed between α = .86 and α = .91.
• Identity-Based Bullying Subscales: The modular items addressing identity-related harassment (race, religion, disability, academic ability) maintain strong item-total correlations, yielding subscale reliability estimates exceeding α = .78.

Test-Retest Reliability

Short-term stability was assessed across a two- to four-week retest interval among non-intervened student cohorts. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation metrics revealed substantial temporal consistency for both victimization frequency (r = .79 to .83) and perpetration frequency (r = .74 to .81). The structural stability of multi-categorical situational indices (e.g., location mapping and reporting behaviors) demonstrated Cohen’s kappa coefficients (κ) ranging from .68 to .84, confirming measurement reliability over repeated administrations.

Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted on large-scale population survey data clarify the underlying factor structure of the NEBS:

Victimization Dimensionality

Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation of the victimization items (Items 5–18) consistently extracts a four-factor correlated model accounting for over 58% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Direct Overt Aggression: Defined by strong factor loadings from Item 5 (name calling, .72), Item 7 (hit/kicked/pushed, .78), Item 9 (theft/property damage, .64), and Item 10 (threats/coercion, .69).
• Factor 2: Indirect/Relational Aggression: Dominated by Item 6 (social exclusion, .75) and Item 8 (malicious lies/rumor spreading, .79).
• Factor 3: Identity-Based/Prejudice Victimization: Characterized by high loadings from Item 11 (race/skin color, .81), Item 12 (religion/sectarian, .84), Item 13 (disability, .77), and Item 15 (academic ability, .68).
• Factor 4: Cyber/Technological Victimization: Defined by high loadings from Item 16 (mobile phones, .85) and Item 17 (computer-mediated abuse, .88).

Perpetration Dimensionality

Analysis of the perpetration domain (Items 30–43) mirrors the victimization factor architecture, extracting congruent direct, relational, identity-based, and cybernetic aggression dimensions with factor loadings ranging from .59 to .86.

Model Fit Indices

Confirmatory factor analytic structural models confirm the four-factor correlated structure, yielding superior fit indices compared to a unidimensional model: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .041 (90% CI [.037, .046]), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .962, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .954, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .038.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structured operational parameters of the NEBS-JQ are outlined below:

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional self-report epidemiological survey and psychometric assessment instrument.
• Target Population: Primary school pupils (Junior Questionnaire: typically ages 8–11; Key Stage 2) and post-primary/secondary school students (Senior Questionnaire: typically ages 11–16; Key Stages 3–4).
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil inventory or secure digital/web-based assessment platform; administered individually or in group classroom settings under standardized invigilation protocols.
• Administration Time: Approximately 25 to 40 minutes for complete inventory completion.
• Item Count: 49 primary numbered items plus 8 specialized demographic/attitudinal sub-items (Junior Questionnaire); includes targeted item substitutions for the Senior Questionnaire.
• Response Scales:
  • Behavioral Frequency Scales: 5-point ordinal scale (“it hasn’t happened to me in the past couple of months” [0], “only once or twice” [1], “2 or 3 times a month” [2], “about once a week” [3], “several times a week” [4]).
  • School Satisfaction: 4-point ordinal scale (“I dislike school very much”, “I dislike school”, “I neither like nor dislike school”, “I like school, I like school very much”).
  • Peer Network Size: 5-point categorical response (from “None” to “6 or more good friends”).
  • Binary/Multi-Categorical Checklists: Nominal inventories (No / Yes) for physical locations (Item 23a–k) and disclosure recipients (Item 24a–f).
  • Attitudinal/Moral Appraisals: 5-point Likert scales (e.g., “always wrong” to “always right”).
• Scoring and Categorization Rules:
  • Cut-off Criteria for Bully/Victim Status: In alignment with international Olweus convention, pupils endorsing a behavioral frequency of “2 or 3 times a month”, “about once a week”, or “several times a week” on global indicators (Item 4 for victimization; Item 29 for perpetration) or specific manifestation items are classified as involved in recurring bullying (as victims, bullies, or bully-victims). Endorsement of “only once or twice” is typically classified as occasional or sub-threshold involvement.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the mean or sum of individual items within the respective behavioral factors (Direct Overt, Relational, Identity-Based, Cyber).
  • Ecological Context Scores: Quantified through additive counts of vulnerable physical spaces and affirmative disclosure targets.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Nature and Extent of Bullying in Schools survey instruments were published in 2007 as part of Research Report No. 46, funded and released by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI). The original research report was conducted by Ulster University under contract with DENI. As an official Crown-commissioned educational research output, the assessment tool was deposited into public educational repositories (DERA Archive) to facilitate academic, institutional, and research utilization. Non-commercial educational institutions and researchers may administer the questionnaire for diagnostic, scientific, and pastoral assessment purposes without licensing fees, provided proper bibliographic attribution is granted to the original authors and the Department of Education Northern Ireland. Commercial reproduction, redistribution, or integration into fee-based software platforms requires formal written authorization from the Department of Education Northern Ireland and the lead investigators.

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
• Livesey, G. E., McAleavy, G. J., Donegan, H. A., Duffy, J., O’Hagan, C., & Adamson, G. (2007). The Nature and Extent of Bullying in Schools in the North of Ireland (Research Report No. 46, 2nd ed.). Department of Education for Northern Ireland. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6706/7/no_46_second_edition_Redacted.pdf
• Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.
• Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Research Center for Health Promotion, University of Bergen.
• Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status in the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T
• Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)