• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Research proposal..
 

Research proposal..

on

  • 72 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
72
Views on SlideShare
72
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Research proposal.. Research proposal.. Document Transcript

    • Running head: FEMALE BULLIES AND RISK FACTORS Research Proposal: Risk Factors Associated with Female Bullies Stephanie McShan, Ashlee Monk, Kimberly Raby, Pamela Simpson University of Central Florida
    • Table of Contents Introduction Background………………………………………………………………………………..3 Problem……………………………. Purpose……………………………. Significance………………………… Definitions Research Question Hypotheses Literature Review Methodology Research Design Sampling Instrumentation Procedure Data Analysis Threats and Controls Limitations
    • Research Proposal: Risk Factors Associated with Female Bullies Background Girls are commonly overlooked when the subject of bullying is discussed. In most discussions the general bias is that boys are more aggressive than girls. The misconception is that boys tend to victimize and be victims more than girls. The background of our research proposal is to determine the percentage of girls that have ever played a role in bullying and to identify the risk factors of being or becoming a bully.. Relational Aggression is the more common term used to define bullying. It is described as “behavior intended to harm someone by damaging or manipulating his or her relationships with others”(Ophelia Project, www.opheliaproject.org ) . Examples of relational aggression are teasing, harassing, internet bullying (cyber-bullying), starting or spreading rumors, and fighting. The goal of our research proposal is to determine what percentage of girls fall victim to bullying as opposed to those that are the victimizer themselves. The focus of our group was girls in of the elementary ages 7-12 within the Seminole County School District. The research proposal goal is to determine how often girls in this age category have fallen victims to bullying or have actually played the role of a bully themselves. As well as to determine any risk factors that may place a child at risk for being or becoming a bully. The demographics that the research proposal has determined vital to find out this information include, age, grade, race/ethnicity, SES level, GPA and/or FCAT score to assess for academic achievement, family situation (single parent, both parents’,
    • grandparents, foster parents, guardians), number of siblings and birth order of child, occupation of parents, and whether there is a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD. In order to obtain the information needed in the research proposal, there will be two instruments utilized. Those two instruments are a self-esteem questionnaire and a parenting-style questionnaire. Each will give vital information as to how bullying can become an intricate part of a young girls make up in relation to their self-esteem and parenting styles of their parents. Problem As stated before the purpose for the research proposal is to determine the risk factors associated with being or becoming a bully. The problem that may occur with this research proposal is that their may not be ample participation on the part of parents and/or students in order to have valid data results. If for example 25 of 100 parenting style surveys are completed and return, this does not give a broad enough representation to make a valid generalization. Another problem that might occur with this research is that it may be biased to sway more people to admit to bullying or vice versa. The questionnaires that are being completed need to have questions that have a broad scope of questions that will allow for and equal representation of both sides. Also so that it doesn’t represent that all parents that believe in spanking or some type of punishment automatically makes their child a bully or a target for a bully. Overall when creating the research proposal, the problems that may provide a distortion of the results are: to use an unbiased instrument that allows for an assorted
    • answer pool and make sure that the instrument used (i.e. survey) is completed and returned so that there will be enough data to make a generalization about the results. Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify the risk factors of bullying and to understand the dynamics of bullying behavior among school-aged children in order for communities to build safe and effective schools for our children. By studying these risk factors, educators can more easily design programs that will enable all parties involved (educators, parents, and students) to work together to ensure that schools are a safe place for students. Significance There has been considerable interest in understanding divergent developmental pathways leading to antisocial outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood, in both the theoretical (e.g., Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989) and empirical (e.g., Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Schaeffer, Petras, Ialongo, Poduska, & Kellam, 2003) literatures. From this work, it is clear that a pattern of chronic aggressive behavior in childhood is a significant risk factor for antisocial behavior in later life, at least for boys. However, the empirical literature has focused primarily on the development of boys’ aggression and has given little attention to the role of early aggression and other disruptive behaviors in the development of girls’ later antisocial behavior (Keenan & Shaw, 1997; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). A comprehensive theory of the development of antisocial behavior that is specific to girls does not yet exist (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). From the perspective of those who work with young children, however, this research
    • reflects an incomplete view of the understanding of both genders as they relate to bullying and aggressive behavior. The inference drawn from the research is that boys, in particular engage in bullying and aggressive behavior, which leads to antisocial behavior later on in life, but that the development of girls’ aggression has not been a primary focus. Recent research findings suggest that early aggressive– disruptive behavior is a significant problem for some girls and is a worthy target for early identification and intervention efforts. “Because of its deleterious effects on children's development, childhood aggression has been one of the most widely studied adjustment problems in the past several decades. Past work on aggression has been limited in two important ways: (a) aggressive boys have received most of the research attention, whereas aggressive girls have often been excluded from relevant studies, and (b) forms of aggression that are salient to boys have been emphasized, whereas forms that are salient to girls have largely been ignored (Bjorkqvist & Niemela, 1992; Cowan & Underwood, in press; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Robins, 1986). Research suggests that bullying is correlated with student absenteeism, poor academic achievement, social isolation, and internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety, and poor self-esteem. “The harmful effects of bullying have been documented and include feelings of loneliness, school maladjustment, drops in grades, chronic illness, and, in the extreme, suicide (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a, 1996b; Olweus, 1993; Ross, 1996; Turkel & Eth, 1990). Researchers also feel that children can be harmed by occasional incidents of bullying (Stephenson & Smith, 1989; Tattum, 1989). Another factor involves a physical or psychological imbalance of power” (Ross, 1996). Additionally, at least one
    • study shows that, for both boys and girls, early and significant aggressive behavior puts children at a higher risk for antisocial outcomes later in life. “Over the past decade, growing interest in girls' aggression has generated much research activity (Pepler, Madsen, Webster, & Levine, 2005; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004), including a proliferation of studies on relational aggression and its victims. But the topic is still in its infancy and many questions remain”. Definitions For the purposes of this study, bullying is defined as cruel or aggressive behavior that occurs over time to a weaker individual, and may include relational aggression, which Olweus (1997) describes ad a more covert and manipulative form of bullying, which may include spreading rumors, telling lies about another person, socially excluding an individual, or manipulating friendships. Bullies are those that perpetrate these acts of cruelty or aggression. For definitions of different parenting styles, we will be adopting definitions from Baumrind (1966). Permissive parents are characterized as being non-controlling, nonresponsive to their children, and making few, if any, demands from their children. Authoritarian parents are characterized as being less warm in their interactions with their children and more controlling of their children. Authoritative parents are characterized as controlling but also warm and receptive to their children. Other terms that need to be defined include self-esteem, which is defined as a confidence and satisfaction in oneself. An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a plan for accommodations in the school system for children with disabilities. Research Question
    • Hypotheses There is no significant difference in the distribution of age between girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. There is no significant difference in the distribution of grade levels between girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. There is no significant difference in the ethnicities of girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. There is no significant difference in the socioeconomic status of girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. Girls who are identified as bullies are less likely than girls who are not identified as bullies to be living in a household with both biological parents. There is no significant difference in the number of siblings in the households of girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified as bullies to be a middle child. There is no significant difference in the occupations of parents of girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified as bullies to be on an Individualized Education Plan. Girls who are identified as bullies are more likely than girls who are not identified as bullies to have parents who are considered authoritarian or permissive. Girls who are identified as bullies are less likely than girls who are not identified as bullies to have parents who are considered authoritative.
    • Girls who are identified as bullies have significantly lower self-esteem than girls who are not identified as bullies. There is no significant difference in the FCAT scores of girls who are identified as bullies and girls who are not identified as bullies. Literature Review Methodology Research Design For the purpose of this proposal, the design of this of this study would qualify as correlational. The study will determine the correlation between the qualities of a bully versus the parenting styles used on the bullies. It will also determine if the SES, educational abilities also factor into who becomes a bully. The research proposal also has a partial survey study designed into it as well. There are surveys that will be completed by girls within the study and their parents. These surveys will gather information to further give details about SES, education ability, parenting styles and other vital information to determine if there is a direct correlation between these line items and the characteristics of a bully. Sampling For this study, the target population includes all girls in grades 4-6 who engage in bullying. The accessible population, however, includes all girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school district who engage in bullying. The target sample is 100 randomly selected girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school district who engage in bullying and a control group of 100 girls in grades 4-6 in the Seminole County school
    • district who have not been identified as bullies. The final sample will consist of the number of the target sample who successfully complete the study. In order to obtain the sample, the researchers intend to perform a two stage random sampling of elementary schools in Seminole county, Florida. Seminole county was chosen due to the demographic similarities to the overall population in the United States (see Appendix A). Each elementary school in the district will be ordered alphabetically and numbered sequentially starting at 1. Fifteen numbers from a table of random numbers will then be selected and the corresponding schools will be selected to participate in the study. The second part of this sampling method involves random sampling of girls within these schools. From those schools, girls in grades 4-6 who have been identified as engaging in bullying will be organized into an alphabetical list and numbered sequentially starting at 1. One hundred numbers from a table of random numbers will then be selected and the corresponding girls will be selected to participate in the study. The same method will be used to randomly select 100 girls in grades 4-6 who have not been identified as engaging in bullying to serve as the control. Instrumentation Demographics questionnaire This is a questionnaire about demographics that parents would complete, including: age, grade, race/ethnicity, SES level, GPA and/or FCAT score to assess for academic achievement, family situation (single parent, both parents’, grandparents, foster parents, guardians), number of siblings and birth order of child, occupation of parents, and whether there is a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD.
    • Self-Esteem We will use the Culture Free Self Esteem Inventory, Third Edition (CFSEI-3), a set of norm-referenced assessment inventories that measure self-reported self-esteem in children and adolescents ages 6 years and 0 months to 18 years and 11 months. We will use the Intermediate Form for children ages 9-12, a 67-item scale that focuses on: Academic Self-Esteem, General Self-Esteem, Parent/Home Self-Esteem, and Social SelfEsteem. Adequate assessments of both, reliability and validity are reported in the manual. Two kinds of reliability measures were developed, that of internal consistency, suggesting that the instrument is consistent across categories and test-retest reliability, which suggests that there were average correlations between test scores across all age groups and all categories. Content items and subscales used in the CFSEI-3 were developed through literature reviews, reviews of related tools, and factor analytic methods; therefore, it demonstrates adequate assessments of both construct and concurrent validity. This inventory also demonstrates that it is culturally appropriate. Parenting Styles We will use the Parenting Styles & Dimensions Questionnaire, a 32-item scale that measures parenting style by determining parent reactions to child behavior. The purpose of this measurement is to measure parenting styles along the continuum of Baumrind’s (1989) typologies of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. This questionnaire can be completed by both mothers and fathers of school-age children. Each parent rates themselves and the parenting style of their spouse, if applicable. The scoring key of the PSDQ will be used to classify parents into one of three parenting styles. The scoring key will yield an overall mean score in each category of parenting style, and
    • based on this score will determine the parents’ particular style. For the authoritarian parenting style there are fifteen items that yield a mean of seventy-five. The authoritative style includes twelve items with means ranging from twelve to sixty. The permissive style includes five items with a range of means of five to twenty-five. The parenting style with the highest mean determines a particular parents’ style (Robinson et al., 1995). Procedure Data Analysis Before data analysis begins, the data will be thoroughly processed. The code sheet (see attached appendix, still incomplete until range of scores for all instruments obtained) will be used to guide data entry, which will be manually input into NotePad. The data will then be cleaned by a manual data entry check. The data obtained is separated into categorical and quantitative data. The variables treated as categorical include age, grade, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family situation, number of siblings, birth order, parents occupation, and presence of diagnosis for which an IEP is developed. For each of these variables, frequency of each value will be determined for both the group of identified bullies and the control group. The frequency of these values in each group will then be compared and displayed via a bar graph. Discriminant Analysis will be used to determine which attributes are more likely to be attributed to a bully. The quantitative variables include scores on the aggressiveness scale of the CBCL, scores on the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive scales of the parenting inventory, scores on the culture-free self esteem inventory, and scores on the FCAT. Scores from each of the groups will be displayed and compared via frequency polygons.
    • For each of the quantitative variables, SEM will be calculated for each group, and then used to determine the Confidence Interval (CI). Additionally, the t-test for means will be used to determine levels of statistical significance (.05), which will be used to support hypotheses. Levels below statistical significance will be used to support null hypotheses. The scores from the aggressiveness scale of the CBCL from both groups will then be combined to determine a correlation exists to each of the other quantitative variables. Regression Analysis will be employed using the Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient and results will be displayed via scatterplots. Threats and Controls Potential Threats to our Research: 1. Mortation threat – if we send surveys home, we will not receive them all back a. Possible control – large target population b. Have questionnaires and surveys done in the classroom or school setting 2. Gathering adult information from students, such as income and parenting styles a. Possible control – Getting involved directly with parents, ie through conferences or telephone calls 3. Lack of privacy affecting children filling out self-esteem assessments a. Possible control – Children filling it out one at a time alone 4. Parents being untruthful on assessments a. Possible CBCL could help with this in that parents are not asked directly about their parenting, only child’s behavi 5. Defining students who are “bullies” a. Possible control – assess students for bullying behaviors b. Use assessments and surveys such as CBCL 6. Data collector bias a. Possible control – standardize procedures 7. Location threat a possibility Additonal general control for threats – keep procedures standardized and consistent
    • Limitations
    • Appendix A People QuickFacts Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2006 Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006 Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006 Female persons, percent, 2006 White persons, percent, 2006 (a) Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 Seminole County USA 6.00% 6.8% 23.4% 24.6% 11.0% 12.4% 50.7% 50.7% 83.4% 80.1% 11.2% 12.8% 0.4% 1.0% 3.5% 4.4% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% 1.6% 14.5% 14.8% 70.1% 66.4% 46.9% 54.1% 9.1% 11.1% 15.6% 17.9% 88.7% 80.4% 31.0% 24.4% 27 Homeownership rate, 2000 Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 69.5% 25.5% $119,900 Persons per household, 2000 Median household income, 2004 Per capita money income, 1999 Persons below poverty, percent, 2004 $50,842 $24,591 8.5% 66.2% 26.4% $119,600 2.59 2.59 $44,334 $21,587 12.7% Business QuickFacts Black-owned firms, percent, 2002 American Indian and Alaska Native owned firms, percent, 2002 Asian-owned firms, percent, 2002 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander owned firms, percent, 2002 Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2002 Women-owned firms, percent, 2002 Seminole County 3.7% 5.2% S 0.9% 4.1% 4.8% F 7.9% 24.1% 0.1% 6.8% 28.2% Retail sales per capita, 2002 $13,339 $10,615 (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. NA: Not available D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information X: Not applicable S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown 25.5 USA
    • F: Fewer than 100 firms
    • References Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907. Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.