- Email: [email protected]
School bus travel is associated with bullying victimization among Canadian male, but not female, middle and high school students
Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Research article
School bus travel is associated with bullying victimization among Canadian male, but not female, middle and high school students Hugues Sampasa-Kanyinga a,∗ , Jean-Philippe Chaput b,c , Hayley A. Hamilton d,e , Richard Larouche b a
Ottawa Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario K2G 6J8, Canada Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada c Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada d Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S1, Canada e Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 20 December 2015 Received in revised form 16 June 2016 Accepted 19 June 2016 Keywords: Bullying Victimization School bus Active transportation Adolescents
a b s t r a c t Previous research has found a link between active school transportation and bullying victimization among school-aged children. However, the link with other school travel modes (such as car, school bus, and public transportation) and bullying victimization is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between school travel mode and report of bullying victimization among Canadian middle and high school students. The sample consisted of 5065 students aged 11–20 years (mean age: 15.2 ± 1.9 years; 56% females) who participated in the 2013 Ontario Students Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). Overall, 24.7% of students reported school bullying victimization in the past year. Females (27.2%) were more likely than males (22.3%) to be victims of school bullying (p < 0.01). After adjustment for age, ethnicity, subjective socioeconomic status and parental education, multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that, compared to active school transportation, school bus travel to (adjusted odd ratio (OR) = 1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25–2.68) and from (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.70–2.67) school was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization among males, but not females. However, the use of public transportation to get to school was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization compared to active transportation among females only (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.36–0.97). These findings suggest that school travel mode should be considered when considering risks for bullying victimization. Bullying prevention efforts should target school buses to make children’s commute a safe and enjoyable experience. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Despite the efforts of schools to prevent or stop bullying in middle and high schools, bullying remains an important public health problem worldwide (Craig et al., 2009; Hertz, Everett Jones, Barrios, David-Ferdon, & Holt, 2015; UNICEF Office of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 580 6744; fax: +1 613 580 9601. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Sampasa-Kanyinga). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.06.021 0145-2134/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
142
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Research, 2013). Bullying is usually defined as an aggression that is intentionally carried out by one or more individuals and repeatedly targeted toward a person, who cannot easily defend him or herself (Olweus, 1993). A recent meta-analysis documented a mean prevalence rate of school bullying involvement of 35% (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). In Canada, the prevalence of bullying victimization in grade 6–10 students in 2010 has been estimated at 22%, placing the country in 21st place of 29 industrialized countries (UNICEF Office of Research, 2013). In 2013, the prevalence of bullying victimization in grade 7–12 students in Ontario has been estimated around 25% (Boak et al., 2014; Ottawa Public Health, 2014; Sampasa-Kanyinga & Willmore, 2015; Sampasa-Kanyinga, Roumeliotis, & Xu, 2014). These alarming statistics support the necessity to identify settings where school bullying is happening. A previous study has shown that bullying, which used to happen on school yards (mostly during break periods), is also happening on route to and from school among students who engage in active transportation (e.g. walking or cycling) (Cozma, Kukaswadia, Janssen, Craig, & Pickett, 2015). However, the link between bullying victimization and other school travel modes, such as school bus or public transportation, is largely unknown. Given that bullying is known to happen in locations that have lower levels of adult supervision (Craig & Pepler, 1998; Vaillancourt et al., 2010), school bus travel may be conducive to bullying behavior and victimization (Galliger, Tisak, & Tisak, 2009; Raskauskas, 2005). While the school bus is an often overlooked setting where bullying victimization could be happening (Henderson, 2009), bullying on school bus is a well-known phenomenon among school bus drivers (deLara, 2008; Evans, 2014). For example, deLara (2008) collected information from school bus drivers about student behavior on their buses and drivers’ perceptions of school administrators’ interest in their input. The author reported that bus drivers not only witness a considerable amount of bullying among students, but most of them also felt that they were not included in the district’s school safety planning efforts. Raskauskas (2005) conducted a video analysis to identify occurrences and types of bullying on buses of elementary school students. The author observed that approximately two incidents of bullying occurred per bus ride and that both frequency and severity differed by bus fullness (Raskauskas, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous report of an empirical assessment of the link between school travel mode and bullying victimization at the population level among middle and high school students. This study was carried out to investigate the association between school travel mode and school bullying victimization in a large and diverse sample of adolescents derived from the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). It is hypothesized that school bus travel would be associated with a higher risk of bullying victimization than active transportation in middle and high school students. 2. Methods The OSDUHS is a biennial province-wide cross-sectional survey of Ontario students enrolled in grades 7–12 in publicly funded schools, representing about 92% of the province’s adolescent population (Boak et al., 2014). Ongoing since 1977, the OSDUHS is the longest ongoing school survey in Canada and one of the longest globally. The selection of students employs a stratified (region and school type), two-stage (school, class) cluster sample design. Schools were selected with probability proportionate to size within each of 20 region-by-school level strata. A systematic sampling without replacement was used to select school, after a random start. A school that refused to participate was replaced with a randomly selected school from the same strata. Within each participating school, classes were selected from a list of eligible classes within each grade. All classes were selected randomly from grade-stratified lists, with the exception of those that were same-grade replacement classes selected for convenience, often by principals (16.5% of all classes). The final sample consisted of 10,272 students drawn from 42 school boards, 198 schools and 671 classes. The participation rate among students was 63%, which is above average for a survey of students that requires active parental consent (Courser, Shamblen, Lavrakas, Collins, & Ditterline, 2009). Student non-response was due to absenteeism (11%) and unreturned consent forms or parental refusal (26%). A comparison between high responding and low responding classes showed no evidence of nonresponse bias for a set of health-related behaviors (Boak, Hamilton, Adlaf, & Mann, 2013). The present study was restricted to a subsample of 5478 students who completed one of the two randomly-distributed questionnaires containing the mental health and bullying items. Detailed information on the study design and methods are available elsewhere (Boak et al., 2013). The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committees of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the participating public and Catholic school boards, and York University who administered the surveys. All participants provided their own consent in addition to parental signed consent. 2.1. Measures 2.1.1. Bullying victimization. Students were asked about bullying victimization using an item that was adapted from the World Health Organization’s Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study (Boak et al., 2013). The question was introduced as follows: “The next questions are about bullying. Bullying is when one or more people tease, hurt or upset a weaker person on purpose, again and again. It is also bullying when someone is left out of things on purpose.” School bullying victimization was measured by the following questions: “Since September, how often have you been bullied at school?” Responses included (1) was not bullied at school since September, (2) less than once a month, (3) about once a month, (4) about once a week, or (5) daily or almost daily”. Options 2 through 4 were combined to create a dichotomous variable.
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
143
2.1.2. School travel mode. School travel mode was measured using two items asking how participants usually travel to and from school. Response options included car (as a driver or passenger), school bus, public bus, walking, cycling, subway or street car, or others. For analysis purposes, school travel mode was treated as a 4-category variable including car, school bus, public transportation (public bus, subway or street car), or active transportation (walking or cycling). Participants who reported multiple or other travel modes to (n = 83) and from school (n = 87) were excluded from the analysis. 2.1.3. Covariates. Demographics included age (in years), sex, and ethnicity. Ethnicity was measured by asking students to select one or more categories that best described their ethnic background. Response options listed were similar to those used in the 2006 Canadian Census (Canada, 2006). Students who selected only one ethnic background were grouped into five categories including White, Black, East/Southeast Asian, South Asian, or other. Students who selected multiple ethnic backgrounds were coded as other. Subjective socioeconomic status (SES) was measured using the youth version of the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Goodman et al., 2001). Minor modifications were made to the youth scale to assess the family’s place within the society. The question was presented with a drawing of a ladder with 10 rungs that was described as follows: “Imagine this ladder below shows how Canadian society is set up. At the top of the ladder are people who are the “best off.” These people have the most money, the most education, and the most respected jobs. At the bottom are the people who are “worst off.” These people have the least money, little education, no job or jobs that no one wants. Now think about your family. Please check off the numbered box that best shows where you think your family would be on this ladder”. A dichotomous measure was constructed to represent low (<7) and high (≥7) subjective SES, wherein low scores represent those below the mean. Parental education was measured using the following items: “How far did your father go in school?” and “How far did your mother go in school?” Response options referred to attended or graduated high school, college or university, and did not attend high school. The highest level of education achieved by a parent was used in analyses. Response options were grouped into four categories for analysis purposes: university degree, some college/university, high school or less, and do not know. 2.2. Data analysis Analyses were conducted in STATA (version 13.0, Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Taylor series linearization methods were used to account for the complex sample design of the survey. Missing data were handled through listwise deletion, reducing the sample size to 5065 participants. Given that the interactions between active school transportation and sex and between school bus travel and sex were significant, all analyses were stratified by sex. Descriptive statistics summarized socio-demographic characteristics, school travel mode, and reports of bullying victimization in the past 12 months. Sociodemographic correlates of bullying victimization as well as bivariate associations between school travel mode and bullying victimization were examined by sex. Victimization status was compared with age using an adjusted Wald test and with the rest of variables (categorical) using a chi-squared test, adjusted for the survey design and transformed into an F-statistic. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to test the association between school travel mode and reports of bullying victimization. Covariates included age, ethnicity, subjective SES, and parental education. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. 3. Results Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of participants. About half of participants (48.9%) were females, 60% were White, and 70% were from families of higher SES. Overall, 24.7% of students reported school bullying victimization in the past 12 months. Approximately 25% and 33% of students reported active transportation to and from school, respectively. With respect to motorized school travel mode, car travel was the most common mode of transportation to get to school in the morning (36.5%), while school bus travel was the most frequent for the afternoon trip (30.9%). Sociodemographic correlates of bullying victimization by sex are presented in Table 2. Overall, females (27.3%) were more likely than males (22.1%) to be victims of school bullying (p < 0.01). Reports of bullying victimization significantly varied by age and SES among both males and females. Compared to adolescents who did not report bullying victimization, those who reported such threats were more likely to be younger and from low SES families. Adolescent females who identified themselves as Asian (East Asian, South East Asian or South Asian) were less likely to report bullying victimization. Females whose parents have university degrees were less likely to report bullying victimization, while those whose parents have low education levels (high school diploma or less) were more likely to report bullying victimization. Table 3 presents the prevalence of bullying victimization by school travel mode and by sex. Adolescent males who travel to and from school by school bus were more likely to report bullying victimization than those who used other modes. However, among adolescent females, those who traveled to school by school bus or engaged in active transportation were more likely to report bullying victimization compared to those who traveled by car or public transportation. Results of the multivariable logistic regression analyses testing the association between school travel mode and bullying victimization are presented in Table 4. Both unadjusted (Model 1) and adjusted (Model 2) analyses indicated that, compared to active school transportation, school bus travel was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization on the way to school (adjusted OR = 1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25–2.68) and from school (adjusted OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.20–2.67)
144
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148 Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the sample. N Age Mean age (years)
Weighted % 15.2 ± 1.9
Sex Males Females
2231 2834
51.1 48.9
Ethnicity White Black East/SE Asian South Asian Other
2971 276 492 530 796
59.9 5.4 10.1 10.1 14.5
Subjective socioeconomic status Low High
1369 3696
29.7 70.3
Parental education University degree Some college/university High school or less Don’t know
1271 1301 1227 1266
23.7 27.2 28.0 21.1
Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
1171 1845 1734 315
24.7 36.5 29.2 9.6
Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
1624 1154 1820 467
33.3 23.2 30.9 12.7
Bullying victimization No Yes
3735 1330
75.3 24.7
a b c
Includes walking or cycling. Includes traveling as a driver or passenger. Includes public bus, subway, and streetcar.
among males, but not females. Among females, only the link between traveling to school by public transportation and bullying victimization remained significant after adjustment for covariates (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.36–0.97). Females who traveled to school via public transportation were at significantly lower odds of bullying victimization than those who engaged in active transportation. 4. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate the association between diverse school travel modes and reports of school bullying victimization at the population level among middle and high school students. Our analyses indicated that the extent to which school travel mode is related to bullying victimization greatly varies by gender. Compared to active school transportation (e.g. walking or cycling), school bus travel was associated with greater odds of school bullying victimization among males, but not females. However, the use of public transportation to get to school was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization compared to active transportation among females, but not males. Collectively, these results provide further evidence to support that school bus travel should be considered when considering risks for bullying victimization in male adolescents. These findings may help to inform the development of tailored interventions to address school bullying victimization in youth. Our results are somewhat consistent with a previous study (Cozma et al., 2015) indicating that bullying has moved beyond the school yard, as it is also happening on route before and after school in children and adolescents. Indeed, Cozma et al. (2015) reported that two-third of the children who reported active transportation indicated that worrying about bullying on the way to school was an obstacle to such transportation mode. They also showed that bullying victimization was reported more frequently by children who engage in active transportation compared to all inactive modes (i.e. car, school bus, and public transportation). However, their analyses were restricted to participants living within 1.6 km of their school, thereby excluding the majority of those who traveled by bus. The present study extends this research by including older students and multiple other travel modes. In contrast to earlier findings (Cozma et al., 2015), our results indicate
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
145
Table 2 Sociodemographic correlates of bullying victimization. Males (N = 2231)
Females (N = 2834)
Bullying victimization
p value
Bullying victimization
p value
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total (%)
22.1
77.9
27.3
72.7
Age Mean age (years)
14.8 ± 1.7
15.3 ± 1.9
14.8 ± 1.7
15.3 ± 1.9
Ethnicity (%) White Black East/SE Asian South Asian Other
23.1 27.3 24.5 18.8 16.5
76.9 72.7 75.5 81.2 83.5
0.33
29.3 18.5 19.3 18.8 32.4
70.7 81.5 80.7 81.2 67.6
0.02
Subjective SES (%) Low High
28.7 19.7
71.3 80.3
<0.01
33.8 24.2
66.2 75.8
<0.01
Parental education (%) University degree Some college/university High school or less Don’t know
19.2 23.4 23.3 22.5
80.8 76.6 76.7 77.5
0.70
20.0 24.4 33.9 29.3
80.0 75.6 66.1 70.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
SES, socioeconomic status.
that active school transportation is associated with lower odds of bullying victimization than school bus travel to and from school among males. Compared to public transportation, however, active school transportation is associated with greater odds of bullying victimization among females. These findings suggest that transportation to and from school is conducive to bullying. Consequently, bullying prevention efforts should be expanded into school buses to make children’s commute a safe and enjoyable experience. School bus may be an ideal setting for bullying behavior and victimization because of the low adult supervision on board (Galliger et al., 2009; Raskauskas, 2005). Usually, the school bus driver is the sole adult on board, and has primary responsibility to safely operate the bus and get students to and from school on schedule (Chung & Shalaby, 2007). Managing a large number of young passengers while operating the bus is a challenge for school bus drivers, especially in case of violence on board. The drivers may not always be able to intervene when bullying behavior is happening. It is therefore crucial to provide training to the school bus drivers to help them recognize, manage, and report bullying behavior on school bus (Evans, 2014). Nevertheless, most of the school buses are now equipped with camera which can help school administrators to identify bullying perpetrators. For example, Raskauskas (2005) reviewed thirty bus videotapes of elementary school students to analyze incidents of bullying, and her analysis revealed that approximately two episodes of bullying occurred per 25 min bus ride. The author identified high student to adult ratio as one of the risk factors associated with bullying on the bus, as full buses showed a higher frequency and severity of bullying (Raskauskas, 2005). Larger number of students with varying ages and grade levels traveling together on the school bus has been indicated to offer more opportunity for bullying Table 3 Prevalence of bullying victimization by school travel mode. Males (N = 2231)
Females (N = 2834)
Bullying victimization Yes
No
Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
18.6 20.6 28.3 20.9
81.4 79.4 71.7 79.1
Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
19.6 16.0 29.3 23.8
80.4 84.0 70.7 76.2
a b c
Includes walking or cycling. Includes traveling as a driver or passenger. Includes public bus, subway, and streetcar.
p value
Bullying victimization
p value
Yes
No
0.02
32.5 23.7 31.2 18.9
67.5 76.3 68.8 81.1
0.01
<0.01
29.1 26.4 29.0 21.0
70.9 73.6 71.0 79.0
0.32
146
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Table 4 Results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis of the association between school travel mode and bullying victimization. Males (N = 2231) OR Model 1 Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc Model 2 Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
Females (N = 2834) 95% CI
p value
OR
95% CI
p value
1 1.14 1.73 1.15
0.76–1.70 1.21–2.47 0.75–1.79
0.53 <0.01 0.51
1 0.64 0.94 0.49
0.45–0.92 0.68–1.31 0.31–0.77
0.02 0.68 <0.01
1 0.78 1.70 1.28
0.51–1.19 1.19–2.41 0.82–1.99
0.25 <0.01 0.28
1 0.87 0.99 0.65
0.62–1.23 0.71–1.39 0.39–1.06
0.43 0.97 0.08
1 1.32 1.83 1.36
0.88–1.99 1.25–2.68 0.86–2.14
0.18 <0.01 0.19
1 0.74 0.99 0.59
0.51–1.07 0.70–1.39 0.36–0.97
0.11 0.94 0.04
1 0.94 1.79 1.48
0.61–1.44 1.20–2.67 0.95–2.30
0.77 <0.01 0.08
1 0.97 1.01 0.78
0.66–1.42 0.71–1.45 0.46–1.32
0.86 0.93 0.35
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. Model 1: unadjusted. Model 2: adjusted for age, ethnicity, subjective socioeconomic status, and parental education. a Includes walking or cycling. b Includes traveling as a driver or passenger. c Includes public bus, subway, and streetcar.
where younger students are most often bullied by older students (Ramage & Howley, 2005). The observed findings on the inverse association between public transportation travel and bullying victimization among females may be explained by the presence of many adults on public transit, which may deter bullying perpetrators to engage in such violent behavior. The observed gender differences in this large representative sample of adolescents are interesting. Although females were generally more likely to report school bullying than their male counterparts, school bus travel to and from school was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization than active school transportation among males. However, public transportation was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization than active transportation among females. Experiences of bullying victimization is well known to vary by sex. Males are more likely to be victims of direct forms of bullying, including physical bullying (e.g., hitting, pushing, and kicking) and verbal bullying (e.g., name-calling and teasing in a hurtful way) than females, whereas females are more involved in indirect bullying, which is relational bullying (e.g., social exclusion and spreading rumors) (Björkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Owens, Shute, & Slee, 2000). Therefore, it is possible that the pervasiveness of relational bullying among females explains the lack of significant association between school bus travel and bullying victimization in females. Regardless of the bullying type, research has reported mixed results on sex differences in bullying victimization. For example, in a large scale survey of 11to 15-year-old school children from 40 countries (N = 202,056) from the 2005/06 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey, Craig et al. (2009) found that, in the majority of countries (29 out of 40), females were more likely to report higher levels of victimization than males and this pattern was relatively similar for each age group (Craig et al., 2009). In contrast to these findings, previous studies conducted in Canada (Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2014) and USA (Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012) have found no sex differences in reports of bullying victimization at school. Given ongoing efforts of schools and public health professionals to stop bullying on school property, it is possible that the patterns of bullying have changed toward more indirect bullying victimization on school property, with more direct forms of bullying happening on school buses and other settings with limited adult supervision. Future studies will need to further explore gender differences and the nature of bullying victimization on school buses. Results indicated that both males and females who were young and from families of lower SES reported highest prevalence of bullying victimization, which are consistent with previous research (Jansen, Veenstra, Ormel, Verhulst, & Reijneveld, 2011; Messias, Kindrick, & Castro, 2014; Schneider et al., 2012). Existing research examining racial differences in bullying has not been conclusive. For instance, some studies suggest that White adolescents are more likely than Black adolescents to report experience of bullying victimization (Nansel et al., 2001; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007), whereas other research has found no evidence of racial differences in bullying (Hepburn, Azrael, Molnar, & Miller, 2012). Findings that female students, but not males, who identified themselves as White and those of parents with lower educational level
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
147
reported most often bullying victimization is surprising and deserve further investigation. Nevertheless, results suggest that sociodemographic factors play an important role in experiences of bullying victimization among adolescents. There are several limitations to the present study that warrant discussion. First, the cross-sectional nature limits the assessment of temporality and therefore causality. Future research with longitudinal data will be important for establishing the temporal sequence between school travel mode and bullying victimization. Second, all data were self-reported, thus subject to recall bias and desirability response, especially for bullying victimization. Third, bullying victimization was assessed using a single question, which may raise potential issues related to reliability. Future studies may consider using more refined questions and report their psychometric properties to reduce the risk of bias. Finally, this study did not consider students’ roles as perpetrators nor differentiate types of bullying victimization. It is possible that bullying types vary based on location (i.e., school playground, en route for walkers, school bus, etc.). Moreover, the observed relationships between school travel mode and bullying victimization may vary by age. Future studies are recommended on the relationship among age, gender, school travel mode, and nature of bullying perpetration and victimization. 5. Conclusion This study found that, compared to active school transportation, school bus travel was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization among males. However, the use of public transportation to get to school was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization compared to active transportation among females only. These results highlight the need for bullying prevention efforts to target school buses to make children’s commute a safe and enjoyable experience. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings with a longitudinal design, as well as address the other limitations of the present study. Conflict of interest None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, a Centre for Addiction and Mental Health initiative, was funded in part through ongoing support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, as well as targeted funding from several provincial agencies. The funders had no involvement in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. The authors’ contributions are as follows: HSK, RL, and JPC conceived the study, HSK performed the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript; RL and JPC provided guidance and critical reviews of the manuscript. HAH is a co-investigator of the survey on which the analyses are based, contributed to the interpretation of results and provided critical reviews of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. References Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30(3–4), 177–188. Boak, A., Hamilton, H. A., Adlaf, E. M., Beitchman, J. H., Wolfe, D., & Mann, R. E. (2014). The mental health and well-being of Ontario students, 1991–2013. Detailed OSDUHS findings. (CAMH Research Document Series No. 38). Toronto, ON. Boak, A., Hamilton, H. A., Adlaf, E. M., & Mann, R. E. (2013). Drug use among Ontario students: 1977–2013. Detailed OSDUHS findings (CAMH Research Document Series No. 36). Toronto, ON. Chung, E.-H., & Shalaby, A. (2007). Expected time of arrival model for school bus transit using real-time global positioning system-based automatic vehicle location data. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 11(4), 157–167. Courser, M. W., Shamblen, S. R., Lavrakas, P. J., Collins, D., & Ditterline, P. (2009). The impact of active consent procedures on nonresponse and nonresponse error in youth survey data: Evidence from a new experiment. Evaluation Review, 33(4), 370–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X09337228 Cozma, I., Kukaswadia, A., Janssen, I., Craig, W., & Pickett, W. (2015). Active transportation and bullying in Canadian schoolchildren: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 15, 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1466-2 Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., . . . & Group, H. B. W. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(Suppl. 2), 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9 Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13(2), 41–59. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. deLara, E. W. (2008). Bullying and aggression on the school bus: School bus drivers’ observations and suggestions. Journal of School Violence, 7(3), 48–70. Evans, N. (2014). Exploring the school bus as an environment for bullying: A phenomenological study (Doctoral Dissertation). Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University. Galliger, C. C., Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (2009). When the wheels on the bus go round: Social interactions on the school bus. Social Psychology of Education, 12(1), 43–62. Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), E31. Henderson, B. B. (2009). The school bus: A neglected children’s environment. Journal of Community Psychology E, 12. Hepburn, L., Azrael, D., Molnar, B., & Miller, M. (2012). Bullying and suicidal behaviors among urban high school youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 93–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.014 Hertz, M. F., Everett Jones, S., Barrios, L., David-Ferdon, C., & Holt, M. (2015). Association between bullying victimization and health risk behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of School Health, 85(12), 833–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12339
148
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Jansen, D. E., Veenstra, R., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2011). Early risk factors for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The longitudinal TRAILS study. BMC Public Health, 11, 440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-440 Lagerspetz, K. M., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14(6), 403–414. Messias, E., Kindrick, K., & Castro, J. (2014). School bullying, cyberbullying, or both: Correlates of teen suicidality in the 2011 CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(5), 1063–1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.02.005 Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094–2100. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school what we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Ottawa Public Health. (2014). Ottawa student drug use and health report, 2014. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Public Health. http://ottawa.ca/healthreports Accessed 25.06.15 Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 67–83. Ramage, R., & Howley, A. (2005). Parents’ perceptions of the rural school bus ride. Rural Educator, 27(1), 15–20. Raskauskas, J. (2005). Bullying on the school bus: A video analysis. Journal of School Violence, 4(3), 93–107. Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., Roumeliotis, P., & Xu, H. (2014). Associations between cyberbullying and school bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and attempts among Canadian schoolchildren. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e102145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102145 Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., & Willmore, J. (2015). Relationships between bullying victimization psychological distress and breakfast skipping among boys and girls. Appetite, 89, 41–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.020 Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308 Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009 Statistics Canada. (2006). Census 2006 – 2B (Long Form). Ottawa. UNICEF Office of Research. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., . . . & Mackenzie, M. (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 40–54.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Research article
School bus travel is associated with bullying victimization among Canadian male, but not female, middle and high school students Hugues Sampasa-Kanyinga a,∗ , Jean-Philippe Chaput b,c , Hayley A. Hamilton d,e , Richard Larouche b a
Ottawa Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario K2G 6J8, Canada Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada c Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada d Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S1, Canada e Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 20 December 2015 Received in revised form 16 June 2016 Accepted 19 June 2016 Keywords: Bullying Victimization School bus Active transportation Adolescents
a b s t r a c t Previous research has found a link between active school transportation and bullying victimization among school-aged children. However, the link with other school travel modes (such as car, school bus, and public transportation) and bullying victimization is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between school travel mode and report of bullying victimization among Canadian middle and high school students. The sample consisted of 5065 students aged 11–20 years (mean age: 15.2 ± 1.9 years; 56% females) who participated in the 2013 Ontario Students Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). Overall, 24.7% of students reported school bullying victimization in the past year. Females (27.2%) were more likely than males (22.3%) to be victims of school bullying (p < 0.01). After adjustment for age, ethnicity, subjective socioeconomic status and parental education, multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that, compared to active school transportation, school bus travel to (adjusted odd ratio (OR) = 1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25–2.68) and from (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.70–2.67) school was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization among males, but not females. However, the use of public transportation to get to school was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization compared to active transportation among females only (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.36–0.97). These findings suggest that school travel mode should be considered when considering risks for bullying victimization. Bullying prevention efforts should target school buses to make children’s commute a safe and enjoyable experience. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Despite the efforts of schools to prevent or stop bullying in middle and high schools, bullying remains an important public health problem worldwide (Craig et al., 2009; Hertz, Everett Jones, Barrios, David-Ferdon, & Holt, 2015; UNICEF Office of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 580 6744; fax: +1 613 580 9601. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Sampasa-Kanyinga). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.06.021 0145-2134/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
142
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Research, 2013). Bullying is usually defined as an aggression that is intentionally carried out by one or more individuals and repeatedly targeted toward a person, who cannot easily defend him or herself (Olweus, 1993). A recent meta-analysis documented a mean prevalence rate of school bullying involvement of 35% (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). In Canada, the prevalence of bullying victimization in grade 6–10 students in 2010 has been estimated at 22%, placing the country in 21st place of 29 industrialized countries (UNICEF Office of Research, 2013). In 2013, the prevalence of bullying victimization in grade 7–12 students in Ontario has been estimated around 25% (Boak et al., 2014; Ottawa Public Health, 2014; Sampasa-Kanyinga & Willmore, 2015; Sampasa-Kanyinga, Roumeliotis, & Xu, 2014). These alarming statistics support the necessity to identify settings where school bullying is happening. A previous study has shown that bullying, which used to happen on school yards (mostly during break periods), is also happening on route to and from school among students who engage in active transportation (e.g. walking or cycling) (Cozma, Kukaswadia, Janssen, Craig, & Pickett, 2015). However, the link between bullying victimization and other school travel modes, such as school bus or public transportation, is largely unknown. Given that bullying is known to happen in locations that have lower levels of adult supervision (Craig & Pepler, 1998; Vaillancourt et al., 2010), school bus travel may be conducive to bullying behavior and victimization (Galliger, Tisak, & Tisak, 2009; Raskauskas, 2005). While the school bus is an often overlooked setting where bullying victimization could be happening (Henderson, 2009), bullying on school bus is a well-known phenomenon among school bus drivers (deLara, 2008; Evans, 2014). For example, deLara (2008) collected information from school bus drivers about student behavior on their buses and drivers’ perceptions of school administrators’ interest in their input. The author reported that bus drivers not only witness a considerable amount of bullying among students, but most of them also felt that they were not included in the district’s school safety planning efforts. Raskauskas (2005) conducted a video analysis to identify occurrences and types of bullying on buses of elementary school students. The author observed that approximately two incidents of bullying occurred per bus ride and that both frequency and severity differed by bus fullness (Raskauskas, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, there is no previous report of an empirical assessment of the link between school travel mode and bullying victimization at the population level among middle and high school students. This study was carried out to investigate the association between school travel mode and school bullying victimization in a large and diverse sample of adolescents derived from the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). It is hypothesized that school bus travel would be associated with a higher risk of bullying victimization than active transportation in middle and high school students. 2. Methods The OSDUHS is a biennial province-wide cross-sectional survey of Ontario students enrolled in grades 7–12 in publicly funded schools, representing about 92% of the province’s adolescent population (Boak et al., 2014). Ongoing since 1977, the OSDUHS is the longest ongoing school survey in Canada and one of the longest globally. The selection of students employs a stratified (region and school type), two-stage (school, class) cluster sample design. Schools were selected with probability proportionate to size within each of 20 region-by-school level strata. A systematic sampling without replacement was used to select school, after a random start. A school that refused to participate was replaced with a randomly selected school from the same strata. Within each participating school, classes were selected from a list of eligible classes within each grade. All classes were selected randomly from grade-stratified lists, with the exception of those that were same-grade replacement classes selected for convenience, often by principals (16.5% of all classes). The final sample consisted of 10,272 students drawn from 42 school boards, 198 schools and 671 classes. The participation rate among students was 63%, which is above average for a survey of students that requires active parental consent (Courser, Shamblen, Lavrakas, Collins, & Ditterline, 2009). Student non-response was due to absenteeism (11%) and unreturned consent forms or parental refusal (26%). A comparison between high responding and low responding classes showed no evidence of nonresponse bias for a set of health-related behaviors (Boak, Hamilton, Adlaf, & Mann, 2013). The present study was restricted to a subsample of 5478 students who completed one of the two randomly-distributed questionnaires containing the mental health and bullying items. Detailed information on the study design and methods are available elsewhere (Boak et al., 2013). The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committees of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the participating public and Catholic school boards, and York University who administered the surveys. All participants provided their own consent in addition to parental signed consent. 2.1. Measures 2.1.1. Bullying victimization. Students were asked about bullying victimization using an item that was adapted from the World Health Organization’s Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study (Boak et al., 2013). The question was introduced as follows: “The next questions are about bullying. Bullying is when one or more people tease, hurt or upset a weaker person on purpose, again and again. It is also bullying when someone is left out of things on purpose.” School bullying victimization was measured by the following questions: “Since September, how often have you been bullied at school?” Responses included (1) was not bullied at school since September, (2) less than once a month, (3) about once a month, (4) about once a week, or (5) daily or almost daily”. Options 2 through 4 were combined to create a dichotomous variable.
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
143
2.1.2. School travel mode. School travel mode was measured using two items asking how participants usually travel to and from school. Response options included car (as a driver or passenger), school bus, public bus, walking, cycling, subway or street car, or others. For analysis purposes, school travel mode was treated as a 4-category variable including car, school bus, public transportation (public bus, subway or street car), or active transportation (walking or cycling). Participants who reported multiple or other travel modes to (n = 83) and from school (n = 87) were excluded from the analysis. 2.1.3. Covariates. Demographics included age (in years), sex, and ethnicity. Ethnicity was measured by asking students to select one or more categories that best described their ethnic background. Response options listed were similar to those used in the 2006 Canadian Census (Canada, 2006). Students who selected only one ethnic background were grouped into five categories including White, Black, East/Southeast Asian, South Asian, or other. Students who selected multiple ethnic backgrounds were coded as other. Subjective socioeconomic status (SES) was measured using the youth version of the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Goodman et al., 2001). Minor modifications were made to the youth scale to assess the family’s place within the society. The question was presented with a drawing of a ladder with 10 rungs that was described as follows: “Imagine this ladder below shows how Canadian society is set up. At the top of the ladder are people who are the “best off.” These people have the most money, the most education, and the most respected jobs. At the bottom are the people who are “worst off.” These people have the least money, little education, no job or jobs that no one wants. Now think about your family. Please check off the numbered box that best shows where you think your family would be on this ladder”. A dichotomous measure was constructed to represent low (<7) and high (≥7) subjective SES, wherein low scores represent those below the mean. Parental education was measured using the following items: “How far did your father go in school?” and “How far did your mother go in school?” Response options referred to attended or graduated high school, college or university, and did not attend high school. The highest level of education achieved by a parent was used in analyses. Response options were grouped into four categories for analysis purposes: university degree, some college/university, high school or less, and do not know. 2.2. Data analysis Analyses were conducted in STATA (version 13.0, Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Taylor series linearization methods were used to account for the complex sample design of the survey. Missing data were handled through listwise deletion, reducing the sample size to 5065 participants. Given that the interactions between active school transportation and sex and between school bus travel and sex were significant, all analyses were stratified by sex. Descriptive statistics summarized socio-demographic characteristics, school travel mode, and reports of bullying victimization in the past 12 months. Sociodemographic correlates of bullying victimization as well as bivariate associations between school travel mode and bullying victimization were examined by sex. Victimization status was compared with age using an adjusted Wald test and with the rest of variables (categorical) using a chi-squared test, adjusted for the survey design and transformed into an F-statistic. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to test the association between school travel mode and reports of bullying victimization. Covariates included age, ethnicity, subjective SES, and parental education. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. 3. Results Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of participants. About half of participants (48.9%) were females, 60% were White, and 70% were from families of higher SES. Overall, 24.7% of students reported school bullying victimization in the past 12 months. Approximately 25% and 33% of students reported active transportation to and from school, respectively. With respect to motorized school travel mode, car travel was the most common mode of transportation to get to school in the morning (36.5%), while school bus travel was the most frequent for the afternoon trip (30.9%). Sociodemographic correlates of bullying victimization by sex are presented in Table 2. Overall, females (27.3%) were more likely than males (22.1%) to be victims of school bullying (p < 0.01). Reports of bullying victimization significantly varied by age and SES among both males and females. Compared to adolescents who did not report bullying victimization, those who reported such threats were more likely to be younger and from low SES families. Adolescent females who identified themselves as Asian (East Asian, South East Asian or South Asian) were less likely to report bullying victimization. Females whose parents have university degrees were less likely to report bullying victimization, while those whose parents have low education levels (high school diploma or less) were more likely to report bullying victimization. Table 3 presents the prevalence of bullying victimization by school travel mode and by sex. Adolescent males who travel to and from school by school bus were more likely to report bullying victimization than those who used other modes. However, among adolescent females, those who traveled to school by school bus or engaged in active transportation were more likely to report bullying victimization compared to those who traveled by car or public transportation. Results of the multivariable logistic regression analyses testing the association between school travel mode and bullying victimization are presented in Table 4. Both unadjusted (Model 1) and adjusted (Model 2) analyses indicated that, compared to active school transportation, school bus travel was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization on the way to school (adjusted OR = 1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25–2.68) and from school (adjusted OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.20–2.67)
144
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148 Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the sample. N Age Mean age (years)
Weighted % 15.2 ± 1.9
Sex Males Females
2231 2834
51.1 48.9
Ethnicity White Black East/SE Asian South Asian Other
2971 276 492 530 796
59.9 5.4 10.1 10.1 14.5
Subjective socioeconomic status Low High
1369 3696
29.7 70.3
Parental education University degree Some college/university High school or less Don’t know
1271 1301 1227 1266
23.7 27.2 28.0 21.1
Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
1171 1845 1734 315
24.7 36.5 29.2 9.6
Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
1624 1154 1820 467
33.3 23.2 30.9 12.7
Bullying victimization No Yes
3735 1330
75.3 24.7
a b c
Includes walking or cycling. Includes traveling as a driver or passenger. Includes public bus, subway, and streetcar.
among males, but not females. Among females, only the link between traveling to school by public transportation and bullying victimization remained significant after adjustment for covariates (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.36–0.97). Females who traveled to school via public transportation were at significantly lower odds of bullying victimization than those who engaged in active transportation. 4. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate the association between diverse school travel modes and reports of school bullying victimization at the population level among middle and high school students. Our analyses indicated that the extent to which school travel mode is related to bullying victimization greatly varies by gender. Compared to active school transportation (e.g. walking or cycling), school bus travel was associated with greater odds of school bullying victimization among males, but not females. However, the use of public transportation to get to school was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization compared to active transportation among females, but not males. Collectively, these results provide further evidence to support that school bus travel should be considered when considering risks for bullying victimization in male adolescents. These findings may help to inform the development of tailored interventions to address school bullying victimization in youth. Our results are somewhat consistent with a previous study (Cozma et al., 2015) indicating that bullying has moved beyond the school yard, as it is also happening on route before and after school in children and adolescents. Indeed, Cozma et al. (2015) reported that two-third of the children who reported active transportation indicated that worrying about bullying on the way to school was an obstacle to such transportation mode. They also showed that bullying victimization was reported more frequently by children who engage in active transportation compared to all inactive modes (i.e. car, school bus, and public transportation). However, their analyses were restricted to participants living within 1.6 km of their school, thereby excluding the majority of those who traveled by bus. The present study extends this research by including older students and multiple other travel modes. In contrast to earlier findings (Cozma et al., 2015), our results indicate
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
145
Table 2 Sociodemographic correlates of bullying victimization. Males (N = 2231)
Females (N = 2834)
Bullying victimization
p value
Bullying victimization
p value
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total (%)
22.1
77.9
27.3
72.7
Age Mean age (years)
14.8 ± 1.7
15.3 ± 1.9
14.8 ± 1.7
15.3 ± 1.9
Ethnicity (%) White Black East/SE Asian South Asian Other
23.1 27.3 24.5 18.8 16.5
76.9 72.7 75.5 81.2 83.5
0.33
29.3 18.5 19.3 18.8 32.4
70.7 81.5 80.7 81.2 67.6
0.02
Subjective SES (%) Low High
28.7 19.7
71.3 80.3
<0.01
33.8 24.2
66.2 75.8
<0.01
Parental education (%) University degree Some college/university High school or less Don’t know
19.2 23.4 23.3 22.5
80.8 76.6 76.7 77.5
0.70
20.0 24.4 33.9 29.3
80.0 75.6 66.1 70.7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
SES, socioeconomic status.
that active school transportation is associated with lower odds of bullying victimization than school bus travel to and from school among males. Compared to public transportation, however, active school transportation is associated with greater odds of bullying victimization among females. These findings suggest that transportation to and from school is conducive to bullying. Consequently, bullying prevention efforts should be expanded into school buses to make children’s commute a safe and enjoyable experience. School bus may be an ideal setting for bullying behavior and victimization because of the low adult supervision on board (Galliger et al., 2009; Raskauskas, 2005). Usually, the school bus driver is the sole adult on board, and has primary responsibility to safely operate the bus and get students to and from school on schedule (Chung & Shalaby, 2007). Managing a large number of young passengers while operating the bus is a challenge for school bus drivers, especially in case of violence on board. The drivers may not always be able to intervene when bullying behavior is happening. It is therefore crucial to provide training to the school bus drivers to help them recognize, manage, and report bullying behavior on school bus (Evans, 2014). Nevertheless, most of the school buses are now equipped with camera which can help school administrators to identify bullying perpetrators. For example, Raskauskas (2005) reviewed thirty bus videotapes of elementary school students to analyze incidents of bullying, and her analysis revealed that approximately two episodes of bullying occurred per 25 min bus ride. The author identified high student to adult ratio as one of the risk factors associated with bullying on the bus, as full buses showed a higher frequency and severity of bullying (Raskauskas, 2005). Larger number of students with varying ages and grade levels traveling together on the school bus has been indicated to offer more opportunity for bullying Table 3 Prevalence of bullying victimization by school travel mode. Males (N = 2231)
Females (N = 2834)
Bullying victimization Yes
No
Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
18.6 20.6 28.3 20.9
81.4 79.4 71.7 79.1
Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
19.6 16.0 29.3 23.8
80.4 84.0 70.7 76.2
a b c
Includes walking or cycling. Includes traveling as a driver or passenger. Includes public bus, subway, and streetcar.
p value
Bullying victimization
p value
Yes
No
0.02
32.5 23.7 31.2 18.9
67.5 76.3 68.8 81.1
0.01
<0.01
29.1 26.4 29.0 21.0
70.9 73.6 71.0 79.0
0.32
146
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Table 4 Results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis of the association between school travel mode and bullying victimization. Males (N = 2231) OR Model 1 Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc Model 2 Travel mode to school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc Travel mode from school Active transportationa Carb School bus Public transportationc
Females (N = 2834) 95% CI
p value
OR
95% CI
p value
1 1.14 1.73 1.15
0.76–1.70 1.21–2.47 0.75–1.79
0.53 <0.01 0.51
1 0.64 0.94 0.49
0.45–0.92 0.68–1.31 0.31–0.77
0.02 0.68 <0.01
1 0.78 1.70 1.28
0.51–1.19 1.19–2.41 0.82–1.99
0.25 <0.01 0.28
1 0.87 0.99 0.65
0.62–1.23 0.71–1.39 0.39–1.06
0.43 0.97 0.08
1 1.32 1.83 1.36
0.88–1.99 1.25–2.68 0.86–2.14
0.18 <0.01 0.19
1 0.74 0.99 0.59
0.51–1.07 0.70–1.39 0.36–0.97
0.11 0.94 0.04
1 0.94 1.79 1.48
0.61–1.44 1.20–2.67 0.95–2.30
0.77 <0.01 0.08
1 0.97 1.01 0.78
0.66–1.42 0.71–1.45 0.46–1.32
0.86 0.93 0.35
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. Model 1: unadjusted. Model 2: adjusted for age, ethnicity, subjective socioeconomic status, and parental education. a Includes walking or cycling. b Includes traveling as a driver or passenger. c Includes public bus, subway, and streetcar.
where younger students are most often bullied by older students (Ramage & Howley, 2005). The observed findings on the inverse association between public transportation travel and bullying victimization among females may be explained by the presence of many adults on public transit, which may deter bullying perpetrators to engage in such violent behavior. The observed gender differences in this large representative sample of adolescents are interesting. Although females were generally more likely to report school bullying than their male counterparts, school bus travel to and from school was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization than active school transportation among males. However, public transportation was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization than active transportation among females. Experiences of bullying victimization is well known to vary by sex. Males are more likely to be victims of direct forms of bullying, including physical bullying (e.g., hitting, pushing, and kicking) and verbal bullying (e.g., name-calling and teasing in a hurtful way) than females, whereas females are more involved in indirect bullying, which is relational bullying (e.g., social exclusion and spreading rumors) (Björkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Owens, Shute, & Slee, 2000). Therefore, it is possible that the pervasiveness of relational bullying among females explains the lack of significant association between school bus travel and bullying victimization in females. Regardless of the bullying type, research has reported mixed results on sex differences in bullying victimization. For example, in a large scale survey of 11to 15-year-old school children from 40 countries (N = 202,056) from the 2005/06 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey, Craig et al. (2009) found that, in the majority of countries (29 out of 40), females were more likely to report higher levels of victimization than males and this pattern was relatively similar for each age group (Craig et al., 2009). In contrast to these findings, previous studies conducted in Canada (Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2014) and USA (Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012) have found no sex differences in reports of bullying victimization at school. Given ongoing efforts of schools and public health professionals to stop bullying on school property, it is possible that the patterns of bullying have changed toward more indirect bullying victimization on school property, with more direct forms of bullying happening on school buses and other settings with limited adult supervision. Future studies will need to further explore gender differences and the nature of bullying victimization on school buses. Results indicated that both males and females who were young and from families of lower SES reported highest prevalence of bullying victimization, which are consistent with previous research (Jansen, Veenstra, Ormel, Verhulst, & Reijneveld, 2011; Messias, Kindrick, & Castro, 2014; Schneider et al., 2012). Existing research examining racial differences in bullying has not been conclusive. For instance, some studies suggest that White adolescents are more likely than Black adolescents to report experience of bullying victimization (Nansel et al., 2001; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007), whereas other research has found no evidence of racial differences in bullying (Hepburn, Azrael, Molnar, & Miller, 2012). Findings that female students, but not males, who identified themselves as White and those of parents with lower educational level
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
147
reported most often bullying victimization is surprising and deserve further investigation. Nevertheless, results suggest that sociodemographic factors play an important role in experiences of bullying victimization among adolescents. There are several limitations to the present study that warrant discussion. First, the cross-sectional nature limits the assessment of temporality and therefore causality. Future research with longitudinal data will be important for establishing the temporal sequence between school travel mode and bullying victimization. Second, all data were self-reported, thus subject to recall bias and desirability response, especially for bullying victimization. Third, bullying victimization was assessed using a single question, which may raise potential issues related to reliability. Future studies may consider using more refined questions and report their psychometric properties to reduce the risk of bias. Finally, this study did not consider students’ roles as perpetrators nor differentiate types of bullying victimization. It is possible that bullying types vary based on location (i.e., school playground, en route for walkers, school bus, etc.). Moreover, the observed relationships between school travel mode and bullying victimization may vary by age. Future studies are recommended on the relationship among age, gender, school travel mode, and nature of bullying perpetration and victimization. 5. Conclusion This study found that, compared to active school transportation, school bus travel was associated with greater odds of bullying victimization among males. However, the use of public transportation to get to school was associated with lower odds of bullying victimization compared to active transportation among females only. These results highlight the need for bullying prevention efforts to target school buses to make children’s commute a safe and enjoyable experience. Further studies are needed to replicate these findings with a longitudinal design, as well as address the other limitations of the present study. Conflict of interest None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, a Centre for Addiction and Mental Health initiative, was funded in part through ongoing support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, as well as targeted funding from several provincial agencies. The funders had no involvement in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. The authors’ contributions are as follows: HSK, RL, and JPC conceived the study, HSK performed the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript; RL and JPC provided guidance and critical reviews of the manuscript. HAH is a co-investigator of the survey on which the analyses are based, contributed to the interpretation of results and provided critical reviews of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. References Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30(3–4), 177–188. Boak, A., Hamilton, H. A., Adlaf, E. M., Beitchman, J. H., Wolfe, D., & Mann, R. E. (2014). The mental health and well-being of Ontario students, 1991–2013. Detailed OSDUHS findings. (CAMH Research Document Series No. 38). Toronto, ON. Boak, A., Hamilton, H. A., Adlaf, E. M., & Mann, R. E. (2013). Drug use among Ontario students: 1977–2013. Detailed OSDUHS findings (CAMH Research Document Series No. 36). Toronto, ON. Chung, E.-H., & Shalaby, A. (2007). Expected time of arrival model for school bus transit using real-time global positioning system-based automatic vehicle location data. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 11(4), 157–167. Courser, M. W., Shamblen, S. R., Lavrakas, P. J., Collins, D., & Ditterline, P. (2009). The impact of active consent procedures on nonresponse and nonresponse error in youth survey data: Evidence from a new experiment. Evaluation Review, 33(4), 370–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X09337228 Cozma, I., Kukaswadia, A., Janssen, I., Craig, W., & Pickett, W. (2015). Active transportation and bullying in Canadian schoolchildren: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 15, 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1466-2 Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., . . . & Group, H. B. W. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(Suppl. 2), 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9 Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13(2), 41–59. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. deLara, E. W. (2008). Bullying and aggression on the school bus: School bus drivers’ observations and suggestions. Journal of School Violence, 7(3), 48–70. Evans, N. (2014). Exploring the school bus as an environment for bullying: A phenomenological study (Doctoral Dissertation). Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University. Galliger, C. C., Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (2009). When the wheels on the bus go round: Social interactions on the school bus. Social Psychology of Education, 12(1), 43–62. Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), E31. Henderson, B. B. (2009). The school bus: A neglected children’s environment. Journal of Community Psychology E, 12. Hepburn, L., Azrael, D., Molnar, B., & Miller, M. (2012). Bullying and suicidal behaviors among urban high school youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 93–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.014 Hertz, M. F., Everett Jones, S., Barrios, L., David-Ferdon, C., & Holt, M. (2015). Association between bullying victimization and health risk behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of School Health, 85(12), 833–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12339
148
H. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 58 (2016) 141–148
Jansen, D. E., Veenstra, R., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2011). Early risk factors for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The longitudinal TRAILS study. BMC Public Health, 11, 440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-440 Lagerspetz, K. M., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14(6), 403–414. Messias, E., Kindrick, K., & Castro, J. (2014). School bullying, cyberbullying, or both: Correlates of teen suicidality in the 2011 CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(5), 1063–1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.02.005 Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094–2100. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school what we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Ottawa Public Health. (2014). Ottawa student drug use and health report, 2014. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Public Health. http://ottawa.ca/healthreports Accessed 25.06.15 Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 67–83. Ramage, R., & Howley, A. (2005). Parents’ perceptions of the rural school bus ride. Rural Educator, 27(1), 15–20. Raskauskas, J. (2005). Bullying on the school bus: A video analysis. Journal of School Violence, 4(3), 93–107. Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., Roumeliotis, P., & Xu, H. (2014). Associations between cyberbullying and school bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and attempts among Canadian schoolchildren. PLOS ONE, 9(7), e102145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102145 Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., & Willmore, J. (2015). Relationships between bullying victimization psychological distress and breakfast skipping among boys and girls. Appetite, 89, 41–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.020 Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308 Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009 Statistics Canada. (2006). Census 2006 – 2B (Long Form). Ottawa. UNICEF Office of Research. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., . . . & Mackenzie, M. (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 40–54.