Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Behavior Therapy 45 (2014) 328 343

www.elsevier.com/locate/bt

Teachers Self-Efficacy, Perceived Effectiveness Beliefs, and

Reported Use of Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Bullying
Among Pupils: Effects of in-Service Training With the
I DECIDE Program
Michael J. Boulton
University of Chester

Despite the promise of being effective in tacking bullying

and conduct disorder, cognitive-behavioral (C-B) interventions are underused by teachers. Little detailed information
exists as to why this is the case. The current study with
junior school teachers in the U.K. (N = 249) confirmed this
low reported usage and showed that while teachers tended
to believe that C-B approaches would be effective, most held
rather low self-efficacy beliefs. Attending a workshop on a
specific C-B approach, the I DECIDE program had positive
effects on perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy beliefs,
and longer durations of training (3 days) were more
beneficial than shorter durations (half/1 day). In line with
outcome-expectancy theory and the theory of planned
behavior, self-efficacy and duration of training predicted
an increase in reported usage of I DECIDE across an
8-month period, and self-efficacy fully mediated the
association between duration of training and increase in
reported usage. The implications of these findings for
overcoming impediments to the more widespread use of
C-B approaches by teachers to tackling bullying were
discussed, particularly the notion that attending training of
sufficient duration coupled with a more explicit attention on
fostering self-efficacy will pay dividends.

Keywords: bullying; victimization; teachers; cognitive-behavioral;

self-efficacy

Address correspondence to Michael J. Boulton, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester
CH1 4BJ, UK; e-mail: m.boulton@chester.ac.uk.
0005-7894/45/328-343/$1.00/0
2014 Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Published by
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BULLYING INVOLVES REPEATED ATTEMPTS by a more

powerful individual (or group) to hurt, humiliate,
upset, or otherwise cause distress to a less powerful
individual (or group) (Olweus, 1993). It occurs
frequently in schools (Rose, Espelage, & MondaAmaya, 2009; Solberg & Olweus, 2003), leads
to considerable distress among victims (Reijntjes,
Kamphuis, Prinzie & Telch, 2010; Vaughn, Fu,
Bender, DeLisi, Beaver, Perron, & Howard, 2010),
and compromises their classroom concentration
and academic achievement (Boulton, Trueman, &
Murray, 2008; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006).
Bullying also disrupts the smooth running of
schools (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), and perpetrators are at elevated risk for psychiatric disorders
(Kazdin & Weisz, 2003) and continuation of
aggression beyond childhood (Olweus, 1993).
Prompted by this evidence, a growing number of
antibullying interventions have been developed
(Samara & Smith, 2008). Evaluation studies report
some but limited success (Frey, Edstrom, &
Hirschstein, 2005; Samples, 2004; Smith, Pepler,
& Rigby, 2004; Smith & Shu, 2002), and
meta-analyses show that no initiative has come
close to eradicating bullying in schools (Merrell,
Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). While it is important to recognize that
bullying is not a disorder, DSM-5 sees it as
contributing to the diagnosis of conduct disorder,
along with frequent or violent aggressive behavior
more generally, and it has been found to be
associated with the latter in an epidemiological
study (Vaughn et al., 2010). Thus, in the review
that follows, we utilize research on conduct

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

disorder where there is little direct evidence for
bullying per se.
It is vital that teachers are included in studies
seeking to understand and prevent bullying (Bauman, Rigby & Hoppa, 2008; Kochenderfer-Ladd,
& Pelletier, 2008), not least because they may be
ineffective in dealing with it (Fekkes, Pijpers, &
Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005; Newman & Murray,
2005; Rigby & Barnes, 2002; Smith & Shu, 2002).
Lack of training has been implicated (Bauman et al.,
2008). Studies have solicited teachers views,
including their beliefs about bullying and how
pupils may avoid it (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy,
2000; Troop & Ladd, 2002), perceived ability to
cope (Boulton, 1997), perceptions of what works
(Dake, Price, Telljohann, & Funk, 2003), and
typical patterns of dealing with incidents (Bauman,
& Del Rio, 2006; Bauman et al., 2008; Boulton,
Hardcastle, Down, Fowles, & Simmonds, in press;
Dake et al., 2003).
Bullying has a complex etiology (Marsh, Parada,
Craven, & Finger, 2004) and it takes many
different forms (direct physical, verbal and psychological assaults through to indirect attacks via
electronic media). Roles other than perpetrator
and victim, such as supporters and onlookers, add
to this complexity (Krn, Voeten, Poskiparta &
Salmivalli, 2010). It is unsurprising, then, that often
teachers feel confused, are unsure of what to do,
and act ineffectively (Gerber & Solari, 2005).
Available evidence suggests that cognitive-behavioral interventions (i.e., based on cognitive-behavioral therapy or its derivatives, denoted by C-B
approaches henceforward) are used relatively
infrequently (Bauman et al., 2008; Samara &
Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2004; Smith, Smith,
Osborn, & Samara, 2008; Ttofi & Farrington,
2011). Put simply, C-B approaches focus on
changing internal thinking and affective processes
as a way to influence actual behavior, and build on
the seminal work of Beck (1976) and Meichenbaum
(1977), among others. C-B approaches have figured
quite prominently in efforts to ameliorate conduct
disorders (Apsche & Bass, 2006; Gerber & Solari,
2005; Ghafoori & Tracz, 2004). The Metropolitan
Area Research Group (2002, 2007) intervention
targets the social cognitions of aggressive responses
to provocations, aggressive fantasy, and normative
beliefs that support aggression. Teachers lead 40
focused 1-hour lessons over a 2-year period. The
Coping Power Program (Lochman et al., 2009;
Lochman & Wells, 2003) involves 34 structured
sessions that teach young people thinking skills,
such as dealing with provocations and anger, and
identifying more socially acceptable responses.
Aggression Replacement Training (Goldstein,

329

Glick, & Gibbs, 1998) incorporates three elements:

Skillstreaming, which aims to build prosocial skills;
anger-control training, which helps youth moderate
their hot emotional responses; and moral reasoning training, which orients them towards socially
acceptable moral codes and beliefs. It is typically
delivered in a 10-week block. Evaluations of these
programs have indicated moderate benefits, in line
with those from Ozabacis (2011) review.
C-B approaches are not central to the wellknown Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
(Olweus & Limber, 2010). But given their wider,
and to some extent successful, application to
tackling other forms of aggression and to conduct
disorder per se (Ozabaci, 2011), it is reasonable to
expect that C-B approaches may usefully be
applied to bullying. Hence, we thought it important to look at teachers perceptions and use of
C-B-based interventions to address the latter.
Moreover, teachers often fail to implement antibullying interventions in the way that training
providers would like, and this in turn affects if and
how pupils bullying-related attitudes and behavior change (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten,
2005).
A few studies have examined teachers perceptions and uses of many different kinds of antibullying approaches. Samara and Smith (2008) collected
data from 148 schools (presumably one member of
staff responded per school) about their level of
satisfaction with some 27 different antibullying
interventions and found almost all were moderate. Naylor and Cowie (1999), who asked
teachers what they thought would be the benefits
of peer support in tackling bullying, found that
many regarded it as communicating a caring ethos.
However, neither of these studies tested if satisfaction was associated with actual or reported usage,
and the questions asked were rather vague.
Moreover, it seems that C-B approaches have
been relatively neglected in this regard; it was not
included in Samara and Smiths (2008) extensive
list of 27 different antibullying interventions that
they studied. Hence, the initial aim of the current
study was to provide the first detailed information
on this issue. Specifically, Aim 1 was to assess (a)
teachers perceived effectiveness beliefs concerning
the use of C-B approaches to peer bullying
(perceived effectiveness henceforward), their
self-efficacy beliefs for using them (self-efficacy
henceforward), and their reported use of them
(usage henceforward); (b) the effects of attending
a training workshop on a specific C-B approach (I
DECIDE) on those two kinds of beliefs (regardless
of duration); and (c) the effects of the duration of
the I DECIDE training on those beliefs.

330

boulton

While furthering our understanding of teachers

beliefs is clearly important, Gerber and Solari
(2005) have made it clear that more needs to be
done to understand why teachers do or do not
actually utilize C-B approaches to tackle unacceptable behavior, including bullying. Hence, we
investigated this broad issue. The rationale for our
more specific hypotheses and research questions
will now be provided.

teachers self-efficacy beliefs, perceived effectiveness of antibullying

approaches and training
In a recent review, Han and Weiss (2005) identified
factors that influence teachers take up and use of
interventions targeted at pupils behavioral and
emotional functioning. It showed that teachers
self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness beliefs, and
level and type of training all played an important
role. Below, we relate each of these factors in more
detail to our current study.
Teachers professional practices are influenced by
their self-efficacy beliefs (Emmer & Hickman,
1991; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Han & Weiss,
2005; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). Conflicting
results have been reported in the context of
antibullying; some evidence suggests teachers
generally have a high level of self-efficacy for
antibullying action (Bradshaw, Sawyer, &
OBrennan, 2007), but other evidence suggests the
opposite (Beran, 2005). Novick and Isaacs (2010)
found that teachers feelings of preparedness to
address bullying influenced their reports of what
they would do if they encountered it. Bradshaw et
al. (2007) found that teachers with highest selfefficacy beliefs reported higher levels of intervening
in actual episodes, but the data were limited by a
cross-sectional design and the reports were of
anticipated rather than actual behavior. Self-efficacy was assessed with a single item: I have
effective strategies for handling a bullying situation. While extant studies are important, none has
looked at teachers self-efficacy beliefs concerning
C-B approaches to bullying per se, and Bauman et
al. (2008) recently called for studies of what
teachers actually do that can be linked longitudinally with their beliefs. Again, data are lacking and
we aimed to fill this gap.
What teachers believe will be effective in addressing bullying has also been linked to their reports of
what they actually do (Dake et al., 2003; Gerber &
Solari, 2005). This resonates with outcome-expectancy theory (Hall, Herzberger, & Skowronski,
1998; Williams, Anderson, & Winett, 2005) that
itself is founded upon the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991, 2002). These theories

suggests that behavioral, normative, and control

beliefs collectively influence an individuals intention
to perform a given behavior. Within the behavioral
beliefs component of the TPB are outcome expectancies, beliefs that a particular outcome will
follow certain behavior. Thus, teachers who have
high perceived effectiveness beliefs concerning C-B
approaches should be more likely to actually
implement them.
Antibullying training is also important. After
training, teachers were significantly less likely to
ignore bullying (Bauman et al., 2008) and enacted
more proactive antibullying work in class (Dake
et al., 2003). Training in C-B-based approaches
to conduct disorders (i.e., not bullying per se) has
also been shown to affect amount and quality of use
of those approaches (Lochman et al., 2009;
Packenham, Shute, & Reid, 2004; Sasso, Reimers,
Cooper, Wacker, & Berg, 1992). This evidence sits
well with theories of how and why practitioners
take up and use novel interventions as these theories
stress the need for them to receive an appropriate
level of training (Mihalic, 2004; Rogers, 2003). The
present study extends this work by examining the
effects of the amount of training on teachers use of
a specific C-B approach to antibullying. That it is
important to do so is suggested by work that has
shown that attendance at training workshops
can have demonstrable effects on community-based
practitioners beliefs about and use of specific
approaches to tacking other kinds of emotional
and behavioral problems (i.e., not bullying per se;
Lim, Nakamura, Higa-McMillan, Shimabukuro, &
Slavin, 2012). Moreover, while there is a growing
awareness of the need to consider how interventions are taken up in community settings (Lim
et al., 2012), what levels of training are required is a
relatively new topic of enquiry (Han & Weiss,
2005; Lochman et al.). Hence, our data should
facilitate the understanding of how to achieve a
wider use of C-B approaches to bullying by teachers
in schools.
Building on the aforementioned research, the
present study also addressed the following aims
that have so far not been reported in the literature:
To test if teachers reported use of a specific C-B
approach (I DECIDE) across an 8-month period
could be predicted from their self-efficacy and
perceived effectiveness of C-B approaches, and
the duration of the I DECIDE training they
received. The durations we tested corresponded
with the typical pattern of in-service training
received by teachers and other communitybased practitioners that takes the form of
workshops (Lim et al., 2012).

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

To test if the association between duration of the
I DECIDE training teachers received and their
reported use of it 8 months later (if found) was
mediated by their self-efficacy and/or perceived
effectiveness of C-B approaches. That these
are viable mediators is supported by the generic underpinning theoretical principle of C-B
approachesnamely, that these kinds of cognitions mediate between personal experiences and
actual behavior (Beck, 1976; Meichenbaum,
1977).

other reasons why teachers do or do

not use c-b antibullying approaches
Despite the aforementioned direct and indirect
evidence that supports the use of C-B approaches
to tackle behavior disorders and bullying per se, it
remains the case that they are underused relative to
other approaches (Lewis, Hudson, Richter, &
Johnson, 2004; Samara & Smith, 2008). Gerber
and Solari (2005, p. 294) noted that by understanding why, we can make progress in increasing
the application of C-B approaches. To the best of
our knowledge, no study to date has actually asked
teachers why they do or do not use C-B antibullying
approaches. Gerber and Solari presented a number
of possible reasons, including the notion that such
approaches are fairly complex and challenging, and
hence teachers may not see it as part of their role to
implement them (Gerber & Solari). Hence, the
fourth and final aim of the current study was to
identify common reasons why teachers who have
received training in the I DECIDE program went on
to report using it frequently versus infrequently in
their everyday practice.

Method
participants
Participants were selected on a convenience basis.
They were recruited through advertisements in
various locations across the U.K. by training
providers, and via attending lectures and talks
delivered by the author at conferences for academics and practitioners, all concerned with antibullying themes. Initially, 446 teachers were
approached to take part in the study. They were
from a minimum of 60 junior schools from across
the U.K., but 155 did not identify their school or
were in the process of changing schools at this
stage. The broad aims were outlined and a
commitment to provide data at the three time
periods (see below) was requested. In total, 249
junior school teachers from 32 schools spread
across the U.K. agreed and provided data, a
response rate of 55.8%. They ranged in age from
24 to 58 years. Training was offered to all of these

331

teachers, and we initially intended to randomly

allocate them to the conditions of the study. In
practice this was not possible in that many teachers
were unable to commit to being available at the
times required by our training schedule because
they had to ensure their classroom duties were
prioritized, were unsure they could arrange cover
staff, or had activities planned that required them
to be with their class. Of the original pool, 124
teachers from 18 schools were able to attend an
in-service I DECIDE training workshop (81.5%
females, called the experimental teachers). Of these,
35 (28.2%) attended a half-day workshop, 31
(25.0%) attended a 1-day workshop, 30 (24.2%)
attended a 2-day workshop, and 28 (22.6%)
attended a 3-day workshop, called duration of
training henceforward. Again, we aimed to
randomly allocate teachers to these durations, but
fell slightly short of this ideal for 4 teachers due to
the same reasons listed above; 1 teacher initially
selected to be in the 1-day workshop, and 3 to be in
the 2-day workshop, were only available for half a
day, and so went into that group. Once we had
identified the experimental teachers, we went back
to the original pool of teachers who had agreed to
be part of the study and who were from neighboring schools in which workshop attendees taught;
these teachers were selected to be in the control
condition. To minimize cross-contamination, these
were drawn from schools that did not include any
teachers in the experimental condition. They were
selected on the basis of matching by sex, age, and
duration of teaching as far as we were able. A group
of 125 teachers from 14 schools met these criteria
(74.4% female, called the control teachers) and
agreed to act in this capacity (i.e., complete our
questionnaires but not receive the training).
The training was delivered in a variety of
locations, including some of the schools the
experimental teachers attended, schools close by
so that teachers from more than one local area
could attend together, and sites away from schools
such as conference centers.

procedure and measures

Data were collected via a postal questionnaire
survey. This was completed at three time points,
denoted by pre-test, post-test and follow-up. For
the experimental teachers, pre-test was 1 week
prior to attendance at an I DECIDE workshop,
post-test was 2 weeks later, and follow-up was
8 months later still. Data collection periods and
intervals were the same for the control teachers. The
questionnaire began by defining C-B approaches:
Cognitive-behavioral approaches focus on helping
children change their problematic behavior by

332

boulton

enabling them to change their thinking patterns and

emotional responses. For example, an adult might
help a pupil identify what things provoke them and
teach them how to have calming thoughts and to
manage feelings like anger. A question asked if
participants had heard of this general approach. All
of the experimental teachers and 120 (96%) of the
control teachers indicated that they had done so at
pre-test.
Our ongoing work with teachers had indicated
that most would likely only consent to take part
if the questionnaire was kept short. Hence,
existing scales that were fairly lengthy would not
have been suitable (such as the 24- or 12-item
Teacher Efficacy Scale [TES]; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the scales that we
developed for this study were kept brief. Three
items were employed to measure perceived effectiveness: (1) I think that cognitive-behavioral
approaches are effective in tackling bullying;
(2) Cognitive-behavioral approaches are not a
good way to stop bullying (r); and (3) Cognitivebehavioral approaches are the best way to prevent
bullying. These items appear to be similar with the
brief description of those employed by Dake et al.
(2003), but the actual items were not provided by
them. Self-efficacy was assessed with three items:
(1) I know how to use cognitive-behavioral
approaches properly; (2) Sometimes Im unsure
about how best to use cognitive-behavioral
approaches (r); and (3) I am skilled at using
cognitive-behavioral approaches. These items
were worded in a similar way to the TES (sample
item: How well can you respond to defiant
students?), with the added advantage that both
positively and negatively worded items were used
here but not in TES, and with a previous single
item measure of teachers self-efficacy, I have
effective strategies for handling a bullying situation (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Response options for
these scales were strongly agree, agree, not sure,
disagree, and strongly disagree, scored from 5 to 1,
or 1 to 5 for negatively worded items, denoted by
r above. Cronbachs alpha values were .71 and
.74, respectively, indicating very high internal
reliability for such short scales. Hence, for each
scale a total score was created, ranging from 3 to
15, with a high score indicating greater perceived
effectiveness and self-efficacy.
Usage was assessed with a single item: How
often do you use I DECIDE or similar cognitivebehavioral approaches in your antibullying work?
Response options were never, very infrequently,
infrequently, frequently, and very frequently,
scored 0 to 4, respectively. At follow-up, for those
choosing one of the first three options (or last

two options), a secondary open question asked,

Why do you use I DECIDE or similar cognitivebehavioral approaches infrequently or never
(frequently) in your antibullying work? At pretest, all participants were reminded that they would
be asked about their reported usage (and the other
variables) at other phases of the project and hence
that keeping a record of when they did use C-B
approaches would be helpful. A pro forma for this
was provided but many teachers reported having
insufficient time to fill them out and instead used
their own records (see below for reliability data).
Since we examined the effects of attending an I
DECIDE workshop on subsequent reported usage
and beliefs, our longitudinal design was implemented to try to minimize the likelihood that participants would have received training in other C-B
approaches in the period between post-test and
follow-up. Specifically, we conducted the study
within a single academic year because teachers
usually attend few training events within such a
period. To test if this was the case, at follow-up
participants were asked, Have you received any
other training in cognitive-behavioral approaches
since you attended the I DECIDE workshop, and if
so what was it and what was its duration? Only
five teachers replied affirmatively, all for a half-day
workshop, and they were spread out across the
experimental and control teachers. Hence, we
deemed it unnecessary to include this variable as a
covariate in our statistical analyses.
Because of the longitudinal and experimental
nature of our study, it was not desirable to assess
test-retest reliability of our measures with actual
participants. Thus a separate sample of teachers
(n = 61) completed the same questionnaire twice,
with a 1-week gap. Pearsons r values for perceived effectiveness, self-efficacy, and usage
were .88, .92, and 1.0, respectively, all p b .001. At
the end of the study, we also assessed the test-retest
reliability of the latter single item measure by asking
a subsample of I DECIDE attendees (n = 22) to
answer that question again, 1 week later. Reliability was high, .98, p b .001.
Content analysis was used to code responses to
the open question. A researcher experienced in this
method initially read through them and identified
themes that were relatively common (i.e., responses
given by at least 10% of participants overall, or by
at least 10% of participants in any duration of
training subgroup). Infrequent responses by this
criterion were subsumed into an other category,
and this was not subject to analysis (see below).
Common responses were labeled (see Table 2) and
used as a taxonomy by two raters to independently
code each response. Cohens kappa indicated good

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

levels of intercoder reliability, with the value being
.80 and .83 for the reasons why I DECIDE was used
infrequently and frequently, respectively. Instances
of initial disagreement were discussed by the three
coders, and resolved with consensus coding.
Given that our variables were all self-report, it
was stressed to all participants that honest
responses were required. They were assured that
responses would remain confidential and that
telling the truth was more helpful to the researchers
than offering socially desirable answers.

the i decide program

The I DECIDE program, designed for children aged
7 + years, is founded on cognitive-behavioral
principles. It was informed by various empirical
and theoretical formulations that are especially
relevant to bullying, such as the notion of hostile
attribution bias (the tendency to attribute hostile
intent in ambiguous provocative situations, Dodge,
2006), and the role of peer approval/disapproval on
an individuals behavior (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz,
Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). It is a
structured program that uses many practical
exercises rather than didactic therapy. Pupils are
shown how to keep a triggers diary to identify
what it was about the victim and/or the peer group
that prompted bullying and bullying-supporting
behavior. They are helped to identify their current
associated patterns of thoughts, the feelings and
emotions that these lead to, the behaviors that follow
from these inner processes, and to understand how
all of those elements influence subsequent overt
behavior and the personal consequences it brings
about. The in-service workshop showed teachers
how to equip pupils at risk of bullying others or
supporting the actions of bullies with the skills to
generate more helpful alternatives at every stage. For
instance, several exercises teach pupils how to draw
a distinction between helpful and unhelpful
thoughts. Workshop attendees were provided with
examples of high-profile cases that illustrate the
principles, and encouraged to look for their own
examples once they started to implement I DECIDE.
For example, many boys and girls in the U.K. are
keen football supporters, and the training used
cases where footballers were sent off (negative
consequence) because they responded to real or
imagined provocations from members of the opposing team with unhelpful thoughts and feelings, and
unacceptable behavior.
In this study, I DECIDE training was presented
as being especially relevant for use as a targeted
preventive intervention for children identified as
being involved in, or at risk of, bullying; however,
as studies have shown that many children will

333

engage in bullying at some point in their school

careers (Olweus, 1993; Rose et al., 2009), it was
also noted that it could be utilized as a universal
intervention with all children in a group.
The workshop made it clear to teachers that
they should not come up with the more helpful
alternatives but rather support pupils in the process
of arriving at their own. At the end of the program,
teachers enable pupils to construct contrasting
self-portraits of the old and new me.
The different durations of training all addressed
the same basic steps covered in I DECIDE, namely,
the triggers, thoughts, feelings, behavior, and
consequences that could be relevant to bullying.
What differed was the variety of exercises taught to
the teachers (longer durations considered more
alternative ways to work on each step) and the
amount of time available to try them out with each
other and discuss them with the group and the
tutor. For example, longer durations allowed more
time for teachers to reflect on why an activity may
not be well-received by pupils, and to discuss how
to overcome those problems, something that was
done only very briefly in the half-day format.
Similarly, with increasing training durations,
attendees had more time to reflect on the ideas
and concepts presented. For example, in the halfday workshop, after explanations of hostile attribution bias and a description of a brief case study,
participants spent 5 minutes discussing (in pairs)
examples of their own pupils exhibiting hostile
attribution style. In the 3-day workshop, training
was augmented by opportunities for attendees to
reflect more personally on situations where they or
a colleague had exhibited such bias. Thus, while the
time available for discussion, consolidation, and
practice may have varied, the content was held as
consistent as possible across the different durations.
All workshops were delivered by the author, a
trained educator and counselor, using manualized
protocols that are usually employed to teach
practitioners how to use C-B approaches. Evaluation studies have shown significant positive effects
on bullying-related thoughts, feelings, and behavior
when teachers implement the I DECIDE program on
a whole class basis (Boulton & Boulton, submitted)
and with targeted groups of at-risk pupils (Boulton,
submitted).

Results
initial comparison of experimental
and control groups
T-tests and chi-squared tests confirmed that the two
groups did not differ in terms of sex, age, duration
of serving as a teacher, amount of extra training
in C-B approaches they had received, and that their

334

boulton

schools did not differ in the proportion of pupils on

the school register receiving free school meals. This,
along with the results which indicated the experimental and control groups did not differ initially on
our dependent variables (see below), means that it is
appropriate to test for the effects of I DECIDE
training on our dependent variables.

aim 1a: teachers initial self-efficacy,

perceived effectiveness, and use of c-b
approaches
Descriptive data from the whole sample at pre-test
were used to quantify teachers self-efficacy, perceived
effectiveness, and usage. There was virtually no
variance in the latter as 96.7% and 94.4% of the
workshop attendees and nonattendees, respectively,
reported that they never used C-B approaches, and the
remainder reported doing so very infrequently or
infrequently. Because of this floor effect, in the
regression analysis that follows, with usage as the
dependent variable, the score at follow-up was
employed as it could be considered a change score.
The mean score for self-efficacy was 8.96 (SD =
2.36, range 3 to 15), corresponding with (slightly
below) the neutral option of the Likert response
options for positively worded items, and indicates a
rather modest level of self-efficacy overall. The
relatively large standard deviation and range suggested a frequency analysis of high and low scores was
appropriate. This revealed that 38 teachers (15.3%)
had a score of 6 or less (i.e., that corresponded with, or
was more negative than, the disagree response
option for positively worded items), indicative of low
or very low levels of self-efficacy. At the other end, 35
teachers (14.1%) had a score of 12 or more (i.e., that
corresponded with, or was more positive than, the
agree response option for positively worded items),
indicative of high or very high levels of self-efficacy.
The mean score for perceived effectiveness was
12.63 (SD = 1.73, range 8 to 15), corresponding with
the agree option of the Likert response options for
positively worded items. A frequency analysis revealed
that 183 teachers (73.5%) had a score of 12 or more
(i.e., that corresponded with, or was more positive
than, the agree response option for positively
worded items). At the other end, only 9 teachers
(3.6%) had a score of 8 or 9 that corresponded with
the neutral response. Together, these results are
indicative of high or very high levels of perceived
effectiveness overall.
aim 1 b: effect of attending an i
decide workshop on self-efficacy and
perceived effectiveness
The effect of attending an I DECIDE workshop
(regardless of duration) on self-efficacy, and, sepa-

rately, perceived effectiveness, was tested using data

collected from the whole sample with a pair of 2
(Time: pre-test versus post-test [within-subjects
factor]) 2 (Group: experimental versus control)
mixed ANOVAs. Significant interaction effects
were investigated with follow-up t-tests. When
self-efficacy served as the dependent variable, the
Time Group interaction was significant, F(1,
247) = 65.18, p b .001, partial eta-squared = .209.
This effect is shown in Figure 1 (top). T-tests
indicated that among both the experimental group,
t(124) = 23.62, p b .001, and the control group,
t(124) = 8.56, p b .001, there was a significant
increase in self-efficacy across time. However, that
this increase was significantly larger in the experimental group than in the control group is indicated
by the findings from independent samples t tests that
show that while there was not a significant difference
between the groups in self-efficacy at pre-test,
t(247) = 0.509, p = .611, there was a significant
difference between the groups at post-test in favor of
the experimental group, t(247) = 6.62, p b .001.
When perceived effectiveness served as the
dependent variable, the Time Group interaction
was also significant, F(1, 247) = 14.99, p b .001,
partial eta-squared = .057. This effect is shown in
Figure 1 (bottom). T-tests indicated that among the
experimental group, t(124) = 3.58, p b .001, there
was a significant increase in perceived effectiveness
from pre-test to post-test, but among the control
group there was a small and nonsignificant decrease,
t(124) = 1.63, p = .105. When the two groups were
compared at pre- and post-test with independent
samples t tests, it was found that they did not differ
initially, t(247) = .863, p = .389, but did do so at
post-test, t(247) = 3.87, p b .001.
Taken together, these results attest to the positive
effect of attending the I DECIDE workshop on both
self-efficacy and perceived effectiveness.

aim 1 c: effect of duration of training

on self-efficacy and perceived
effectiveness
A 2 (Time: pre-test versus post-test [within-subjects
factor]) 4 (Duration: half day, one day, two
day, three day) mixed ANOVA tested if there was
an effect of duration of training on changes in
self-efficacy. The Time Duration interaction was
significant, F(3, 120) = 6.65, p b .001, partial etasquared = .141 (see Figure 2). A set of four t-tests,
one for each duration of training, revealed that
for all durations there was a significant increase in
self-efficacy after attending, minimum t = 10.58
(df 27 to 34), all p b .001. Between-groups ANOVAs showed that whereas there were no significant
differences in self-efficacy at pre-test, F(3, 120) =

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

FIGURE 1
attendance.

335

Mean self-efficacy (top) and effectiveness (bottom) at pre and postI DECIDE workshop

0.32, there were significant differences at post-test,

F(3, 120) = 4.21, p = .007. Post hoc Tukey HSD
tests revealed that the post-test scores of the 3-day
training group were significantly higher than those of
the half-day group, p = .006, with a trend to be
higher than those of the 1-day group, p = .057.
A similar set of analyses to the above was
employed using perceived effectiveness as the
dependent variable. The Time Duration interac-

tion was nonsignificant, F(3, 120) = 0.15, p = .93.

Thus, there was no effect of duration of training on
changes in perceived effectiveness. To confirm this,
and to demonstrate that the groups that received
the different durations of training were equivalent
initially, between-groups ANOVAs showed that
there were no significant differences in perceived
effectiveness at pre-test, F(3, 120) = 0.99, and at
post-test, F(3, 120) = 0.46.

336

boulton

FIGURE 2 Mean self-efficacy at pre and postI DECIDE workshop attendance as a function of
duration of workshop.

aim 2: predicting usage from

self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness,
and the duration of training
The correlations between self-efficacy, perceived
effectiveness (both at post-test), duration of training, and usage (at follow-up) are shown in Table 1.
Usage was significantly correlated with both selfefficacy and duration of training, but not with
perceived effectiveness. The former significant
correlations justify the proposed test set out in
Aim 2 to determine what variables predict reported
usage, but the latter nonsignificant correlation
justifies the exclusion of perceived effectiveness
from this test (and the test of mediation reported for
Aim 3, below. We initially did include perceived

Table 1

Zero-Order Correlations Among Self-Efficacy, Perceived

Effectiveness, Duration of Training, and Reported Usage of I
DECIDE

1. Reported usage of I DECIDE

2. Duration of training
3. Self-efficacy
4. Perceived effectiveness
Note. N = 124; *p b .05; **p b .01.

.23*
-

.30**
.31**
-

.02
-.08
.22**
-

effectiveness in the model but it did not emerge as

a significant predictor, nor did it change materially
the predictive nature of the other variables). Hence,
a multiple regression model was constructed to
determine if self-efficacy and duration of training
(both at post-test and both mean centered; Aiken
and West, 1991) could predict usage 8 months
later at follow-up. The overall model accounted for
11.2% of the variance in usage, a significant
amount, F(2, 121) = 7.64, p = .001. Controlling
for duration of training, self-efficacy emerged as a
significant predictor of usage, Beta = 2.56, p =.005.
However, controlling for self-efficacy, duration of
training did not emerge as a significant predictor of
usage, Beta = 1.52, p =.094. This pattern of results
(i.e., significant correlations between self-efficacy
and usage, and between duration of training and
usage (see Table 1), and the significant regression
model, justifies the test of mediation proposed in
Aim 3, reported below.

aim 3: is the association between

duration of training and usage
mediated by self-efficacy?
The hypothesis that the association between duration of training and usage at follow-up was
mediated by self-efficacy at post-test was investigated using the bootstrapping procedure of

337

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

FIGURE 3 Self-efficacy mediates the association between duration of training and

subsequent reported usage of I DECIDE. Values in brackets refer to the effect of duration of
training on reported usage after controlling for self-efficacy.

Preacher and Hayes (2004), with mean centered

predictor and mediator and 5,000 bootstrap
resamples. The mediation pattern is shown in
Figure 3; importantly, the effect of duration
training on usage, which was originally significant,
beta = .237, p = .01, became nonsignificant when
self-efficacy was entered into the model, beta =
.156, p = .094. Moreover, the indirect effect of
duration of training through self-efficacy on usage
was significantly different from zero at p b .05,
point estimate = .0804, and estimated to lie
between .0140 and .1670 with 95% confidence.
These findings indicate that self-efficacy was a full
mediator.

aim 4: reasons why teachers report

using i decide frequently versus
infrequently
At follow-up, teachers who attended an I DECIDE
workshop were asked how often they used it over
an 8-month period. Sixty-five (52.4%) reported
doing so frequently or very frequently, and 59
reported doing so infrequently, very infrequent-

ly, or never. They were then asked why (Table 2).

The data are broken down by duration of training to
determine if this variable was or was not important,
and chi-squared tests were used to compare responses
as a function of duration. The main impediments cited
among infrequent users, in descending order, were (a)
My school is not set up to use this kind of in-depth
approach, (b) I needed more training, (c) It is a
challenging intervention that I felt was beyond me,
(d) I couldnt commit to such an open-ended
approach with no set time scale, and (e) I continued
to use other interventions. More teachers who
attended the half-day or the 1-day workshops
endorsed the I need more training reason than
expected by chance (all of them did so), with the
opposite being the case among those who attended for
2 or 3 days, 2 (3) = 13.04, p = .004. The same
pattern was also evident for the It is a challenging
intervention that I felt was beyond me reason.
The main reasons teachers gave for using I
DECIDE frequently, in descending order, were (a)
I believe in this approach and found it is effective,
(b) Other generic approaches are insufficient for

Table 2

Percentage (and Number in Brackets) of Teachers That Gave Specific Reasons Why They Used I Decide Infrequently or Not at All
(top) and Frequently (bottom) as a Function of Duration of Training
Duration of I DECIDE training
Half day

1 Day

2 Days

3 Days

All

Reason for infrequent use:

(n = 18)

(n = 16)

(n = 16)

(n = 9)

(n = 59)

My school is not set up to use this kind of in-depth approach.

I needed more training.
It is a challenging intervention that I felt was beyond me.
I couldnt commit to such an open-ended approach with no set timescale.
I continued to use other interventions.

88.9 (16)
100 (18)
88.9 (16)
50.0 (9)
16.7 (3)

81.3 (13)
100 (16)
75.0 (12)
50.0 (8)
25.0 (4)

81.3
50
25.0
37.5
25.0

88.9 (8)
33.3 (3)
0.0 (0)
44.4 (4)
11.1 (1)

84.7
76.3
54.2
45.8
20.3

Reason for frequent use:

(n = 17)

(n = 15)

(n = 14)

(n 19)

(n = 65)

I believe in this approach and found it is effective.

Other generic approaches are insufficient for pupils with behavioral issues.
My training equipped me to use it.
Evidence from research studies has proven it works.

88.2 (15)
76.5 (13)
11.8 (2)
29.4 (5)

93.3
80.0
20.0
26.7

100 (19)
78.9 (15)
84.2 (16)
26.3 (5)

95.4
80.0
46.2
26.2

(13)
(8)
(4)
(6)
(4)

(14) 100(14)
(12) 85.7 (12)
(3) 64.3 (9)
(4) 21.4 (3)

(50)
(45)
(32)
(27)
(12)

(62)
(52)
(30)
(17)

338

boulton

pupils with behavioral issues, (c) My training

equipped me to use it, and (d) Evidence from
research studies has proven it works. More
teachers who attended the 2-day or the 3-day
workshops endorsed the My training equipped me
to use it reason than expected by chance, with the
opposite being the case among those who attended
for a half day or one day, 2 (3) = 16.67, p b .001.

Discussion
Bullying continues to be a major behavioral
problem among a substantial proportion of school
pupils and C-B approaches hold promise as an
effective intervention. Despite this, most teachers
appear to use C-B approaches rather infrequently, if
at all, to tackle bullying per se, as well as specific
forms of emotional and behavioral disorders that
do have diagnoses attached to them (Gerber &
Solari, 2005; Samara & Smith, 2008). The current
study presents important novel data that helps to
elucidate the role of training and why teachers may
vary in this regard.

initial usage, self-efficacy, and

perceived effectiveness beliefs
About three quarters of the teachers agreed that
C-B approaches were likely to be effective in
tackling bullying, and, at worst, only a small
minority (3.6%) expressed neutral beliefs. These
are the first such data to be reported. Our analysis
of teachers qualitative responses make us feel that
it is reasonable to conjecture that they hold such
strong effectiveness beliefs because they are aware
for one reason or another of the substantial
evidence base obtained in research studies. Indeed,
of the 65 teachers who attended an I DECIDE
workshop and who went on to indicate that they
use it or related C-B approaches frequently in their
practice, about a quarter (26.2%) spontaneously
reported that they did so for this reason (see
Table 2). It is encouraging that teachers seem to
be aware of the potential of C-B approaches to
tackling bullying.
It is less encouraging that among the sample as a
whole, the average self-efficacy score corresponded with the neutral point on the response
scale. A minority had even lower scores, and only
about the same small proportion had high scores.
Again, our qualitative data provide insights into
why self-efficacy was so low overall; more than half
(54.2%) of the 59 teachers who attended an I
DECIDE workshop and who went on to report
using it infrequently stated that the reason was
because they felt it was beyond their competence
(see Table 2).

Consistent with other studies (Bauman et al.,

2008; Gerber & Solari, 2005; Samara & Smith,
2008; Smith et al., 2008), only a very small
proportion of our sample reported using C-B
approaches at the start of the project. Thus, our
data indicate that many teachers, perhaps the
majority, can be characterized as not using C-B
approaches to tackling bullying, lacking in selfbelief that they can implement it, but nevertheless
seeing value in it. These novel findings sit well
alongside the conjectures of Gerber and Solari, that
an impediment to the widespread use of C-B
approaches to emotional and behavioral issues is
teacher resistance that itself is based on lack of
confidence rather than lack of perceived effectiveness. Clearly, understanding the sources of
teachers perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy
beliefs towards C-B approaches is important. Our
findings concerning the impact on these beliefs of
attending an in-service training workshop are
explored next.

effects of in-service training on

self-efficacy and perceived
effectiveness beliefs
Attending an I DECIDE workshop had a positive
effect on both self-efficacy and perceived effectiveness beliefs. These results echo those of prior studies
that have also found that (a) antibullying-training
that was not C-B based had a positive effect on
teachers anti-bullying actions (Bauman et al.,
2008; Dake et al., 2003) and (b) training in
C-B-based approaches to conduct disorders (i.e.,
not bullying per se) positively affects the amount
and quality of use of those approaches (Packenham
et al., 2004; Sasso et al., 1992).
All four durations of training had a positive effect
on perceived self-efficacy. Given the relatively low
levels at the start of the study (see above), this is an
especially encouraging finding. We also found
significantly greater gains in the 3-day training
group than in the half-day attendees (and near
significant gains relative to the 1-day attendees) but
not than in the 2-day attendees. The practical
implication is that there is likely to be an optimum
dosage effect of in-service training on selfefficacy. Given the limited amount of time that
teachers have to receive in-service training, future
studies could elucidate more clearly the best ratio of
duration to gains in self-efficacy, and determine if
our findings are replicable. The importance of this
issue is highlighted by the finding that a common
barrier to using some specific antibullying
approaches was the time taken to learn how to
use and implement them (Dake et al., 2003). Future
studies could investigate what specific mechanisms

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

might lead longer training to improve self-efficacy.
Plausible candidates are more time to practice skills,
to discuss ideas with colleagues, and to solve
problems, since they have been found to be
important in prior work that has solicited teachers
views about interventions they can use to improve
pupil relationships (Cowie, Smith, Boulton, &
Laver, 1994).
In contrast, there was no effect of duration of
training on perceived effectiveness beliefs. Without
wishing to explain away this null result, we think it
is relevant to note the finding discussed in the
preceding paragraph that attending the workshop
did have a positive effect on self-efficacy, and that
teachers initially had high perceived effectiveness
beliefs, meaning that there was relatively little scope
for improvement on the latter variable.

impact of self-efficacy, perceived

effectiveness, and duration of
training on use of i decide
Despite an almost total nonuse of C-B approached
at the start of the study, a substantial proportion of
teachers (52.4%) indicated that they used it
frequently or very frequently in the ensuing
8 months. This shows that in-service workshops
can lead to greater reported usage. A value of our
study is that it offers insights into why teachers did/
did not do so. We obtained significant correlations
between reported usage of I DECIDE and both
self-efficacy and duration of training, but not
perceived effectiveness. A regression model indicated that a significant amount of variance (11.2%) in
reported usage was predicted by self-efficacy and
duration of training together. The effect of the
former was not contingent upon the variance it
shared with the latter, but the reverse was not true.
The association between duration of training and
reported usage was fully mediated by self-efficacy.
Our qualitative data painted a similar picture since
just under half of I DECIDE attendees who went on
to use it frequently reported doing so because My
training had equipped me to use it and even more
(95.4%) because I believe in this approach and
found it is effective (see Table 2). Together, all of
these findings mark self-efficacy out as being
particularly important in predicting reported
usage of I DECIDE, both directly in its own right
and also as a mediator. Hence, our other finding
that self-efficacy was improved by attending an I
DECIDE workshop becomes especially important.
An implication is that training providers should
regard improving self-efficacy as an important
outcome in its own rightone that should be
assessed rather than assumed. These findings take
on extra importance given that there is now a big

339

push to get evidence-based practices, including C-B

approaches, used more widely by practitioners such
as teachers who work in community as opposed to
clinical settings (Lim et al., 2012; New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, 2003).
The lack of association between reported usage
of I DECIDE and perceived effectiveness should not
be taken as reflecting the latters lack of importance,
especially given our finding that the most common
reason (given by 95.4%) why I DECIDE attendees
went on to use I DECIDE was because they believe
in this approach and found it is effective. It more
likely reflects the lack of variance in perceived
effectiveness, as most teachers scored high on this
variable.

limitations and future directions

This study has a number of limitations that must be
considered. Our measures were operationalized
with very short scales, or in the case of reported
usage, a single item. In mitigation, though, teachers
only agreed to take part in our study if the questionnaire was very short. Moreover, short or even
single-item scales have been endorsed as a way to
measure straightforward (i.e., unidimensional)
variables (Hayes, 2005; Menesini & Nocentini,
2009; Robins, Hendin & Trzesniewski, 2001),
including self-efficacy (Salmivalli et al., 2005), and
our test-retest coefficients were all good. We
wanted to assess teachers general self-beliefs
about C-B approaches, but future studies would
benefit from asking teachers about some specific
aspects of them since it is entirely possible that they
might, for example, see more value in some
techniques than in others, and this could influence
their actual practice. Our study was not designed to
tap such nuanced issues but it provides a rationale
for this kind of investigation.
While the response rate of about 56% may seem
low, it is common for response rates among
teachers to be low, and ours is higher than some
previous studies of teachers beliefs (MacFarlane &
Woolfson, 2013). Our impression was that many
teachers that we initially approached to take part
were only prevented from doing so because they
could not take time away from their classes.
Nevertheless, it is possible that teachers who did
provide data may differ from those who did not,
and this could limit the generalizability of our
findings. Incentivizing the wider participation of
teachers is recognized as a good way to overcome
this, and, in our view, Kazdins (1998) suggestion of
communicating to potential participants the value
of taking part is a valuable recommendation.
Our study only looked at the effects of one
particular C-B approach, the I DECIDE program,

340

boulton

and again this limits generalizations. Future studies

should determine if positive effects of other C-B
approaches can be demonstrated. Relatedly, we
were unable to assess the integrity with which I
DECIDE was implemented. This is likely to affect
its impact on teachers beliefs and actions, and so
should be measured in future studies.
We focused on the effects on in-service training,
but there is value to be had in studies that test if
similar positive effects, or even stronger ones, can
be obtained during initial training with trainee
teachers. Studies have shown that trainee teachers
beliefs are linked to their intended antibullying
actions (Boulton et al., in press; Craig et al., 2000).
While our study has provided evidence concerning
the importance of self-efficacy, it leaves open the
question of how such beliefs are formed. Our data
clearly suggest that attending training may be helpful,
but future studies could help ascertain what particular
aspects of those experiences impact what specific
cognitions and feelings that are associated with
teachers overall self-efficacy. Interest in improving
self-efficacy extends beyond a concern for the wider
implantation of C-B approaches, since it has been
shown to protect against teacher burnout in the
context of wider classroom management (Brouwers
& Tomic, 2000). The fact that teachers often report
that aggression, and probably bullying too, interferes
with their primary job of teaching and increases their
level of stress (Boxer, Musher-Eizenman, Dubow,
Danner, & Heretick, 2006) can perhaps be used as an
incentive to encourage more to receive and utilize C-B
approaches, and to take part in studies such as this
one.
Our inability to randomly allocate teachers to
the experimental or control conditions could be
seen as a weakness. It is regarded as the best way to
conduct experiments on the effects of interventions, but Kazdin (1998) points out that it doesnt
guarantee that groups will be equivalent on key
variables and that matching can be effective. In
this regard, we were able to show that on a range
of salient variables, the two groups did not differ
significantly, nor did they differ on our dependent
variables initially. Kazdin also notes that in the
absence of random sampling, and even in the
presence of initial group similarity, it is still
possible that the two groups could have been
drawn from different populations with regard to
their scores on dependent variables but have
overlapping distributions. If, by chance, our
experimental (control) group were comprised of
individuals from the lower (upper) end of a
population with generally high (low) self-efficacy
scores, then when they were subsequently tested
on that variable, regression to the mean could

make it appear that they had diverged on that

variable due to the influence of the intervention.
Importantly, this latter possibility is dependent on
how reliably the variable has been measured;
regression to the mean as an explanation is much
less credible with a reliable measure. We were able
to show that self-efficacy, indeed all of our dependent
variables, were highly reliable. Hence, it seems
reasonable to propose that our finding that I DECIDE
training improved self-efficacy was not simply due to
initial group nonequivalence or to a regression to the
mean artifact.
Nevertheless, these suggestions can only militate against the kinds of alternative explanations
presented in the preceding paragraph, given that
we were not able to use true random allocation.
Moreover, it is possible that selection bias may
have played a part in our findings. Specifically,
teachers who attended the I DECIDE workshops
may have been more concerned about tacking
bullying than those who did not. If so, an
implication is that the effect of those workshops
we obtained in this study may not generalize to all
teachers, especially those for whom bullying is not
a priority. Hence, future studies would do well to
strive for random allocation, perhaps by explaining why it is needed to potential participants.
We had more success randomly allocating
experimental group teachers to the different durations of I DECIDE training since this was achieved
for all but four teachers who were not available for
anything other than the half-day training. Again,
we were able to show that the teachers who were
allocated to the different durations did not differ
initially, and our reliable measures suggest that the
effects of different durations of training were not
regression-to-the-mean artifacts.
Our reliance on teacher self-reports of usage of
I DECIDE merits discussion because concerns
have been raised about positive presentation bias
(participants wanting to look good to researchers;
Kazdin, 1998). It is possible that little actual behavior
change occurred. We tried to mitigate such bias by
assuring confidentiality and stressing that telling the
truth was more helpful to the researchers than
offering socially desirable answers. Moreover, evidence from some studies shows that teachers often do
report treatment integrity accurately (Sanetti &
Kratochwill, 2009, 2011) and so self-presentation
bias is not inevitable.
In conclusion, most teachers believed that C-B
approaches can be effective in tackling bullying,
but many held modest levels of self-efficacy
beliefs, and few reported using it initially. Attending a workshop on a specific C-B approach,

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

especially of 3 days as opposed to half a day
duration, increased those self-efficacy beliefs, and
those beliefs, along with duration of the training,
influenced their decisions of whether or not to use
it, with those with the highest self-efficacy beliefs
being most likely to do so. These data suggest that
take-up of C-B approaches will be improved if
more teachers can be encouraged to not only
attend relevant training events but also if that
training leaves them feeling that they can implement C-B approaches effectively. Given the high
incidence of bullying in schools, and the distress
associated with it, ensuring more teachers use
C-B-type interventions is a worthy goal.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 179211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior:
Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 6, 107122.
Apsche, J. A., & Bass, C. K. (2006). A review and empirical
comparison of three treatments for adolescent males with
conduct and personality disorder: Mode deactivation
therapy, cognitive behavior therapy and social skills
training. International Journal of Behavioral and
Consultation Therapy, 2, 382398.
Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). U.S. teachers and
school counsellors strategies for handling school bullying
incidents. Educational Psychology, 28, 837856.
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, S. (2006). Preservice teachers responses to
bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal and relational
bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219231.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional
disorders. New York: New American Library.
Beran, T. (2005). A new perspective on managing school
bullying: Pre-service teachers attitudes. Journal of Social
Sciences, 8, 4349.
Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers views on bullying: Definitions,
attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 67, 223233.
Boulton, M.J. (submitted). The effects of the I DECIDE
program on children identified as bullies and their
supporters: Dealing with real or imagined provocations.
Boulton, M.J., & Boulton, L. (submitted). Primary prevention
of bullying related thoughts, feelings and behavior: An
evaluation of the I DECIDE program.
Boulton, M.J., Hardcastle, K., Down, J., Fowles, J., & Simmonds,
J.A. (in press). A comparison of pre-service teachers responses
to cyber versus traditional bullying scenarios: Similarities and
differences. Journal of Teacher Education.
Boulton, M. L., Trueman, M., & Murray, L. (2008).
Associations between peer victimization, fear of future
victimization and disrupted concentration on class work
among junior school pupils. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 473489.

341

Boxer, P., Musher-Eizenman, D., Dubow, E. F., Danner, S., &

Heretick, D. (2006). Assessing teachers perceptions for
school-based aggression prevention programs: applying a
cognitive-ecological framework. Psychology in the Schools,
43, 331344.
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & OBrennan, L. M. (2007).
Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual
differences between students and school staff. School
Psychology Review, 36, 361382.
Brouwers, A. H., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of
teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom
management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239253.
Buhs, E., Ladd, G., & Herald, S. (2006). Peer exclusion and
victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer
group rejection and childrens classroom engagement and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 113.
Cowie, H., Smith, P. K., Boulton, M., & Laver, R. (1994).
Cooperation in the multi-ethnic classroom. London: David
Fulton.
Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000).
Prospective teachers' attitudes toward bullying and
victimization. School Psychology International, 21, 521.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2003).
Teacher perceptions and practices regarding school bullying
prevention. Journal of School Health, 73, 347355.
Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile
attributional style and the development of aggressive
behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology,
18, 791814.
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in
classroom management and discipline. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 51, 755765.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P.
(2005). Bullying: Who does what, when, and where?
Involvement of children, teachers, and parents, in bullying
behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 8191.
Frey, K., Edstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M. (2005). The Steps
to Respect program uses a multilevel approach to reduce
playground bullying and destructive bystander behaviors. In
D. L. White, M. K. Faber, and B. C. Glenn (Eds.), Proceedings
of Persistently Safe Schools (pp. 4756). Washington, DC:
Hamilton Fish Institute, George Washington University.
Gerber, M. M. & Solari, E. J. (2005). Teaching effort and the future
of cognitive-behavioral interventions. Behavioral Disorders,
30, 289299.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct
validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
569582.
Ghafoori, B., & Tracz, S. M. (2004). Cognitive behavioral
therapy as a clinical intervention for childhood disruptive
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry Online. Available online at: http://www.priory.
com/psych/CBTchildhood.htm (November 23, 2004).
Goldstein, B., Glick, B., & Gibbs, J. (1998). Aggression
Replacement Training: A comprehensive intervention for
aggressive youth. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Hall, J. A., Herzberger, S. D., & Skowronski, K. J. (1998).
Outcome expectancies and outcome values as predictors of
childrens aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 439454.
Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher
implementation of school-based mental health programs.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665679.
Hayes, A. (2005, November). A computational tool for survey
shortening applicable to composite attitude, opinion, and
personality measurement scales. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Midwestern Association for Public Opinion Research,
Chicago, IL.

342

boulton

Krn, A., Voeten, M., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2010).

Vulnerable children in varying classroom contexts: Bystanders'
behaviors moderate the effects of risk factors on victimization.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 261282.
Kazdin, A. E. (1998). Research design in clinical psychology.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kazdin, A. E., & Weisz, J. R. (Eds.). (2003). Evidence-based
psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kochenderfer, B., & Ladd, G. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause
or consequence of school maladjustment? Child
Development, 67, 13051317.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers
views and beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom
management strategies and students coping with peer
victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 431453.
Lewis, T. J., Hudson, S., Richter, M., & Johnson, N. (2004).
Scientifically supported practices in emotional and
behavioral disorders: A proposed approach and brief review
of current practices. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 247259.
Lim, A., Nakamura, B. J., Higa-McMillan, C. K., Shimabukuro,
S., & Slavin, L. (2012). Effects of workshop trainings on
evidence-based practice knowledge and attitudes among
youth community mental health providers. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 50, 397406.
Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Qu, L., Wells, K., &
Windle, M. (2009). Dissemination of the Coping
Power Program: Importance of intensity of counselor
training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
77, 397409.
Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2003). Effectiveness study of
Coping Power and classroom intervention with aggressive
children: Outcomes at a one-year follow-up. Behavior
Therapy, 34, 493515.
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes
and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social,
emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools:
An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 29, 4652.
Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Finger, L.
(2004). In the looking glass: A reciprocal effect model
elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychological
determinants, and the central role of self-concept. In C. E.
Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the
classroom (pp. 63109). London: Elsevier.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification:
An integrative approach. New York: Plenum.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition
and measurement: Some critical considerations. Journal of
Psychology, 217, 230232.
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M.
(2008). How effective are school bullying intervention
programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23, 2642.
Metropolitan Area Research Group. (2002). A cognitive/ecological
approach to preventing aggression in urban settings: Initial
outcomes for high risk children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 70, 179194.
Metropolitan Area Research Group (2007). Changing the way
children think about aggression: Social-cognitive effects
of a preventive intervention. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 75, 160167.
Mihalic, S. (2004). The importance of implementation
fidelity. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Youth,
4, 83105.
Naylor, P., & Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer
support systems in challenging school bullying: The

perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils. Journal

of Adolescence, 22, 467479.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving
the promise: Transforming mental health care in America.
Final Report. (DHHS Pub. No. SMA- 033832). Rockville,
MD.
Newman, R. S., & Murray, B. J. (2005). How students and
teachers view the seriousness of peer harassment: When is it
appropriate to seek help? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 347365.
Novick, R. M., & Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: The
impact of student reports of bullying on teacher
intervention. Educational Psychology, 30, 283296.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and
what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation
and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80,
124134.
Ozabaci, N. (2011). Cognitive behavioural therapy for violent
behaviour in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis.
Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 19891993.
Packenham, M., Shute, R. H., & Reid, R. (2004). A brief
functional assessment procedure for children with disruptive
classroom behavior. Education and Treatment of Children,
27, 925.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS
procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717731.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J.
(2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in
children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 34, 244252.
Rigby, K., & Barnes, A. (2002). To tell or not to tell: The
victimized students dilemma. Youth Studies Australia, 21,
3336.
Robins, R., Hendin, H., & Trzesniewski, K. (2001). Measuring
global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item
measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151161.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Free Press.
Rose, C. A., Espelage, D. L., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (2009).
Bullying and victimisation rates among students in general
and special education: A comparative analysis. Educational
Psychology, 29, 761776.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Antibullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465487.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., &
Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process:
Participant roles and their relations to social status within
the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 115.
Samara, M., & Smith, P. K. (2008). How schools tackle
bullying, and the use of whole school policies: Changes
over the last decade. Educational Psychology, 28,
663676.
Samples, F. L. (2004). Evaluating curriculum-based intervention programs: An examination of preschool, primary, and
elementary school intervention programs. In C. E. Sanders
& G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the
classroom (pp. 203227). London: Elsevier.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Treatment
integrity assessment in the schools: An evaluation of the
Treatment Integrity Planning Protocol. School Psychology
Quarterly, 24, 2435.

teachers and cognitive-behavioral approaches to bullying

Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2011). An evaluation of
the Treatment Integrity Planning Protocol and two schedules
of treatment integrity self-report: Impact on implementation
and report accuracy. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 21, 284308.
Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D., &
Berg, W. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental
analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant
behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 25, 809821.
Smith, P. K., Smith, C., Osborn, R., & Samara, M. (2008). A
content analysis of school anti-bullying policies: Progress
and limitations. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24,
112.
Smith, P. K., Pepler, D. J., & Rigby, K. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in
schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2002). What good schools can do about
bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a
decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193212.
Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of
sc hool bull ying w ith the Olweus Bull y/Vi ctim
Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239268.
Troop, W. P., & Ladd, G. W. (2002). Teachers' beliefs
regarding peer victimization and their intervention practices.

343

Poster presented at the Conference on Human Development,

Charlotte, NC.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. W. (2001).
Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 783805.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of
school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and
meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
7, 2756.
Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., Bender, K., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K.
M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M. O. (2010). Psychiatric
correlates of bullying in the United States: Findings
from a national sample. Psychiatric Quarterly, 81,
183195.
Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli
prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research,
11, 5462.
Williams, D. M., Anderson, E. S., & Winett, R. A. (2005). A
review of the outcome expectancy construct in physical activity
research. The Society of Behavioural Medicine, 29, 7079.
R E C E I V E D : March 26, 2013
A C C E P T E D : December 6, 2013
Available online 14 December 2013