Educational and Psychological

Measurement
Development and 72(4) 649664
The Author(s) 2012
Psychometric Properties of Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
the Homophobic Bullying DOI: 10.1177/0013164412440169
http://epm.sagepub.com

Scale

Gabriele Prati1

Abstract
The study aimed to develop the Homophobic Bullying Scale and to investigate its psy-
chometric properties. The items of the Homophobic Bullying Scale were created to
measure high school students bullying behaviors motivated by homophobia, including
verbal bullying, relational bullying, physical bullying, property bullying, sexual harass-
ment, and cyberbullying. Five scales were developed from viewpoints of bullies
(toward supposed gay men and lesbians), victims, and witnesses (toward supposed
gay men and lesbians). A sample of 863 students enrolled in Grades 9 to 13 in 10
Italian public high schools were involved in this study. The coefficients of internal con-
sistency were greater than .80 for all the scales. Construct validity of its factor struc-
ture was demonstrated using confirmatory factor analysis. Discriminant validity was
demonstrated by comparatively low correlations with homophobic attitudes and the
Homophobic Content Agent Target scale. Results showed the existence of homo-
phobic bullying in various forms other than the use of homophobic epithets. Future
research should examine the experience of bullying behaviors motivated by homo-
phobia in schools.

Keywords
bullying, homophobia, victimization, scale, aggression, adolescents

School bullying is currently recognized as a major problem around the world (Due
et al., 2009). Much evidence has been provided in the literature showing the concur-
rent and long-term consequences of bullying and being bullied by peers (e.g., Gini &

1
University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy

Corresponding Author:
Gabriele Prati, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Europa, 115 47521 Cesena (FC), Italy
Email: gabriele.prati@unibo.it
650 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

Pozzoli, 2009). Despite the fact that significant progress has been made in bullying
research, relatively little is known about a specific form of bullying motivated by
homophobia. Homophobia or sexual prejudice may be defined as negative attitudes
toward homosexuals or homosexuality (Herek, 2000). Homophobic bullying is a spe-
cific form of bullying behavior motivated by homophobia and directed toward stu-
dents who identify as or who are perceived to be (but not necessarily identify
themselves as) lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Students with these characteris-
tics may be considered at serious risk for victimization or homophobic bullying
(Rivers, 2011; Rivers & DAugelli, 2001). The most recent survey conducted by
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) showed that in middle and
high school, nearly 1 of 10 sexual minority students experienced harassment and
nearly two thirds felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation and heard negative
remarks about gender expression (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010).
Furthermore, sexual minority youth victimization has a negative influence on stu-
dents mental health and educational attainment (Bontempo & DAugelli, 2002;
DAugelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Kosciw et al., 2010; Poteat, Espelage,
& Green, 2007).
Given the prevalence and the negative consequences of homophobic bullying, an
appropriate instrument is necessary for investigating the prevalence of this specific
form of school bullying. Poteat and Espelage (2005) developed and validated the
Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) scale to evaluate the extent to which stu-
dents use and are called homophobic epithets. This scale comprises two conceptually
related factors of five items each. The first factor (Agent) measures the extent to
which respondents act as perpetrators of homophobic verbal content, and the second
factor (Target) measures the extent to which respondents are victims of homophobic
content by other students. Applications of the HCAT scale showed that homophobic
content is prevalent in various forms of school bullying. Although the HCAT scale
focuses on assessing the most common form of homophobic bullying (the use of
homophobic epithets; Kosciw et al., 2010; Rivers, 2011), there are no instruments
that specifically assess other forms of verbal bullying, as well as physical bullying,
relational bullying, and cyberbullying motivated by homophobia. Moreover, the
HCAT scale investigates the prevalence of homophobic content only from the view-
points of perpetrators and victims. However, school bullying involves not only perpe-
trators and victims but also students that witness its occurrence (Cheng, Chen, Liu, &
Cheng, 2011). Witnessing school bullying may have negative consequences, such as
externalizing problems and school adjustment. Furthermore, student feelings of inse-
curity following exposure to school bullying partially explained the development of
school engagement and truancy (Janosz et al., 2008). In the case of homophobia at
school, witnessing homophobic aggression was found to be a crucial aspect of a safe
school climate (Kosciw et al., 2010). Therefore, the collection of information from
witnesses viewpoints may be beneficial to establish a more comprehensive under-
standing of homophobic bullying. Finally, because there are clear differences in
homophobic attitudes and behaviors toward gay men and lesbians (e.g., Herek, 2000;
Prati 651

Kosciw et al., 2010; Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Prati, Pietrantoni, & DAugelli, 2011),
homophobic bullying behaviors should be assessed twice, once toward (supposed)
gay men and once toward (supposed) lesbians separately.
Hence, the present research aimed to develop five homophobic bullying scales
from viewpoints of bullies (aggression toward gay men and toward lesbians), victims,
and witnesses (aggression toward gay men and toward lesbians) on the most common
types of aggression motivated by homophobia and to scrutinize the instruments psy-
chometric properties. Based on previous research on homophobic behavior (e.g.,
Poteat, 2007, 2008; Prati et al., 2011), I hypothesized that the homophobic bullying
scales would show positive correlations with homophobic attitudes. However, I
expected medium to low correlation coefficients with homophobic attitudes to sub-
stantiate the discriminant validity of the instrument. Additionally, to establish discri-
minant validity, significant but medium correlations were expected between the two
HCAT scales and the homophobic aggressive behavior and victimization dimensions.
Finally, to determine construct validity, the factor structure was tested.
To estimate the prevalence of being bullied/bullying other students, lower-bound
cutoff points indicated by Solberg and Olweus (2003) were adapted in a conservative
manner. More specifically, students who perpetrated at least one homophobic aggres-
sion behavior about once a week in the past month were considered homophobic
bullies. Furthermore, students who were victims of at least one homophobic aggres-
sion behavior about once a week in the past month were considered victims of
homophobic bullying. The 1, 2, or 3 times in the past month lower-bound thresh-
old value was used as an indicator of the presence of homophobic aggression, rather
than bullying, because the latter should go on over time and with some repetitiveness
(Solberg & Olweus, 2003).

Method
Participants
Participants were 863 students enrolled in Grades 9 to 13 in 10 Italian public high
schools. The majority (60.7%) of the participants were females. Gender was coded as
1 for men and 2 for women. The age of participants ranged from 15 through 22 years
(M = 17.26, SD = 1.59). A total of 23.5% (n = 203) of the participants were in Grade
9, 20.6% (n = 178) in Grade 10, 22.5% (n = 194) in Grade 11, 18.3% (n = 158) in
Grade 12, and 15.1% (n = 130) in Grade 13.

Procedure
Before conducting the study, 133 accounts of homophobic victimization at school
were collected through an anonymous survey posted on the website of Arcigay
Italian Lesbian Gay Association. The accounts were content analyzed, from which I
derived the most frequent forms of homophobic aggression: verbal offenses, written
offenses, isolation/exclusion, spreading rumors or lies, homophobic teasing, property
652 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

theft or damage, physical assault, sexual harassment, and electronic harassment or

cyberbullying. With the exclusion of verbal offences perpetration and victimization
(which is an aspect assessed by the HCAT scale), an item was created for each of the
remaining forms of homophobic behavior. All items were formulated in behavioral
terms and no reference was made to the term bullying, to provide a more objective
estimate of bullying behaviors. The construction of the questionnaire was based on
the Italian version of the Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Menesini & Giannetti, 1997;
Olweus, 1993) and the University of Illinois Bully Scale (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel,
2003). The time frame of the past 30 days was chosen. This relatively short time
frame makes responses less susceptible to recall problems, memory biases, and dis-
tortions; at the same time, it guarantees the measurement of ongoing and repeated
events.
Once created, the questionnaire was subject to a pilot study conducted with a con-
venience sample of 104 high school students. The aim of this pilot study was to assess
the comprehension of the items and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the
instrument. During the pilot test participants were asked to answer a series of ques-
tions regarding their comprehension and interpretation of the items. Results were
used to improve the wording and instructions for items and to reduce their complexity
and/or ambiguity. The reliability and factor analysis results showed good psycho-
metric properties of this preliminary version of the instrument (detailed results are
available from the author on request).
After this pilot phase, a stratified random sample of 20 Italian public high schools
was selected. The stratification of the sample of schools was judged necessary to
allow in the sample a sufficient number of schools from each macro-region and dif-
ferent types of secondary schools differentiated by subjects and activities.
Concerning the macro-region, I considered the five first-level NUTS regions (North
West, North East, Center, South, and Islands). As to types of schools, I considered
two main types of secondary schools: Lyceums (classic, scientific, linguistic, peda-
gogic) and vocational institute (technical and professional). The number of students
per school was not considered for stratification, since the Italian school system guar-
antees a rather homogeneous number of students per school and per class (average
number of students per school is 500, and per class 20).
The school headmasters of the 20 selected schools on the first days of October
2009 were contacted via letter sent by recorded delivery. In the letter the project and
its objectives and methodologies were specified. The letter was followed by a tele-
phone call to ask permission to conduct the study in five classes (randomly selected).
Half (n = 10) of the school headmasters gave their permission to conduct the study
in their schools. The main reason given by those who refused to participate was time
constraint. Parental permission where required was obtained by the school headmas-
ters. Five classes corresponding to Grades 9 to 13 in each school were randomly
selected.
The survey was administered in class settings in January 2010, using a paper-and-
pencil questionnaire. Participants were told that the aim of the study survey was to
Prati 653

learn more about their perspectives on specific social issues. The students were
informed that the survey was not mandatory; all agreed to participate in the study.
Students were also assured about the confidentiality of their responses. Survey proc-
tors assisted students, answered any questions about the questionnaire, and ensured
confidentiality of responses. Participants were given the opportunity to discuss the
topic of homophobic bullying, after the completion of the questionnaire.

Measures
The following were the measures included in the questionnaire.
Homophobic verbal offenses. The HCAT (Poteat & Espelage, 2005) was used to
measure the extent which students called each other homophobic epithets. The Agent
scale measures the extent which students called other students homophobic epithets.
The Target scale measures the frequency with which students experienced being vic-
tims of homophobic epithets. Original HCAT items were used; however, the time
frame was the past 30 days.
Homophobic aggressive behavior (bully perspective). In this section, the perpetration
of homophobic bullying behaviors other than the use of homophobic epithets was
assessed through the instrument created during the pilot phase. More specifically, par-
ticipants were asked to report if they engaged in their schools in the past 30 days eight
homophobic behaviors (written offenses, isolation/exclusion, spreading rumors or
lies, homophobic teasing, property theft or damage, physical assault, sexual harass-
ment, electronic harassment or cyberbullying). The extent which participants engaged
in aggressive behaviors was assessed twice, one for aggression toward students who
were or seemed to be gay men and the other one for aggression toward students who
were or seemed to be lesbians. The questions were introduced by the following state-
ment: Think about a student who is perceived as gay (or lesbian). Because of this,
during the past 30 days, how often did you . . . Response options include Never (1),
1, 2, or 3 times (2), about once a week (3), more than once a week (4).
Homophobic victimization (victim perspective). In this section, the victimization com-
ponent of homophobic bullying behaviors other than the use of homophobic epithets
(homophobic verbal offenses) was assessed through the instrument created during
the pilot phase. More specifically, participants were asked to report if they were sub-
jected to homophobic behaviors in their schools in the past 30 days (written offenses,
isolation/exclusion, spreading rumors or lies, homophobic teasing, property theft or
damage, physical assault, sexual harassment, electronic harassment or cyberbully-
ing). The following question format was used in measuring the extent to which parti-
cipants engaged in homophobic aggressive behaviors: During the past 30 days in
your school, how often were you [the behavior] by a student, because you are per-
ceived be gay or lesbian? Response options include Never (1), 1, 2, or 3 times (2),
about once a week (3), more than once a week (4).
Observation of homophobic aggressive behavior (witness perspective). Observation of
homophobic aggressive behavior was measured with 18 items (9 for gay men and 9
654 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

for lesbians) about the extent to which participants observed homophobic aggression
episodes perpetrated by classmates (verbal offenses, written offenses, isolation/exclu-
sion, spreading rumors or lies, homophobic teasing, property theft or damage, physi-
cal assault, sexual harassment, electronic harassment or cyberbullying). The
questions were introduced by the following statement: Think about a student who
is perceived as gay (or lesbian). Because of this, during the past 30 days, how often
did you . . . ? Response options include Never (1), 1, 2, or 3 times (2), about once a
week (3), more than once a week (4). The question format and the items were
repeated twice, one for homophobic aggression episodes toward (supposed) gay men
and the second for homophobic aggression episodes toward (supposed) lesbians.
Homophobic attitudes. Homophobic attitudes toward gay men and lesbians were
assessed using the 56 items of the Italian scale of homophobia (Falanga, Parisi, & Di
Chiacchio, 2006). This scale was based on an Italian translation of the Modern
Homophobia Scale (Lingiardi, Falanga, & DAugelli, 2005; Raja & Stokes, 1998).
The Italian scale of homophobia comprises two subscales of 28 items each, one
assessing negative attitudes toward gay men and one assessing negative attitudes
toward lesbians. Examples of items included in the scale are the following: Being
gay (or lesbian) is a mental illness and Gay men (or lesbians) should not be
allowed to join the army. Response options on a 5-point Likert-type scale range
from 1 (strongly disagree) through 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores reflecting
more negative attitudes. Construct validity has been documented among a sample of
503 Italian citizens, with a previously reported reliability coefficient of a = .93 for
both subscales (Falanga et al., 2006).

Results
Analysis Strategy
To detect deviation from normality, DeCarlo (1997) suggested a test of univariate
kurtosis based on b2. The tests of kurtosis showed that the measures of homophobic
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians were normally distributed, whereas the mea-
sures of homophobic verbal offenses (the HCAT scale), homophobic aggressive
behavior (both victim and bully perspective), and observation of homophobic aggres-
sive behavior observation were not normally distributed. These variables had a floor
effect, as was evident from the inspection of the curve. The presence of a floor effect
is most obvious in data on bullying (Due et al., 2009; Kosciw et al., 2010; Menesini
& Giannetti, 1997; Olweus, 1993). This data characteristic requires the use of non-
parametric statistics, such as Kendalls tau coefficient (a nonparametric measure of
correlation). Besides, in the confirmatory factor analysis of such items, the use of the
ordered-categorical factor model was employed in Mplus 6 (Muthen & Muthen,
1998-2010). The WLSMV estimator (a robust weighted least squares estimator using
a diagonal weight matrix) was used. Finally, missing data were treated with full
information maximum likelihood imputation, as recommended by Graham (2009).
Prati 655

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To evaluate the factor structure of the Homophobic Bullying Scale, two models were
tested using confirmatory factor analysis. The models were as follows: (a) single fac-
tor and (b) five factors based on the five scales. Although the analyses revealed an
acceptable fit for the single factor model, x2(819) = 1937.40, p \ .001, normed fit
index (NFI) = .93, comparative fit index (CFI) = .93, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = .040, the five-factor model was considered to provide the
best fit to the data, x2(809) = 1438.55, p \ .001, NFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA =
.030. Tables 1 and 2 give an overview of the parameters of the five homophobic bul-
lying scales from viewpoints of bullies (aggression toward gay men and toward les-
bians), victims, and witnesses (aggression toward gay men and toward lesbians),
including the standardized regression weights (and standard errors) and the descrip-
tive statistics for each item (the statistics concerning homophobic verbal offenses
and homophobic attitudes are available from the author on request). All the scale
items loaded significantly (p \ .001) on their corresponding latent constructs, indi-
cating good convergent validity. As a matter of fact, standardized factor loadings
ranged from .55 to 1.00, with the exception of the item Hear insulting remarks
about him (standardized factor loadings = .28).
To provide evidence that responses regarding homophobic behaviors toward gay
men and lesbians were different, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used (this test
works in a similar way to the dependent t test when data are nonnormal). As shown
in Table 1, results of this test demonstrated that, with the exception of three items,
participants responded differently according to the perceived sexual orientation of
the target (gay men vs. lesbians).
To test for discriminant validity, a model composed of the following correlated
factors was tested: (a) Agent scale of the HCAT scale, (b) Target scale of the HCAT
scale, (c) Homophobic aggressive behavior toward (supposed) gay men (Bully per-
spective), (d) Homophobic aggressive behavior toward (supposed) lesbians (Bully
perspective), (e) Homophobic victimization, (f) Observation of homophobic aggres-
sive behavior toward (supposed) gay men (Witness perspective), (g) Observation of
homophobic aggressive behavior toward (supposed) lesbians (Witness perspective),
(h) Homophobic attitudes toward gay men, (i) Homophobic attitudes toward lesbians.
This model provided an adequate fit to the data, x2(1,674) = 2897.18, p \ .001, NFI
= .94, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .029. The fit of this model was significantly better than
the fit of the single-factor model comprising all the 9 factors, x2(1,710) = 5344.60,
p \ .001, NFI = .81, CFI = .82, RMSEA = .050.

Nonparametric Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

First, the number of homophobic bullies were computed, considering the answers to
the eight items of the Homophobic Behavior Scale. When about once a week
was used as the lower-bound threshold value, there were 86 students (9.97%) who
may be considered homophobic bullies. When 1 or 2 times was used as the
 Table 1. Summary of Parameter Estimates and Descriptive Statistics for Observation and Perpetration of Homophobic Aggressive Behavior

656
(Witness and Bully Perspectives)

Toward (Supposed) Gay Men Toward (Supposed) Lesbians

Standardized Standardized
Regression Standard Regression Standard
M SD Mdn Weight Error M SD Mdn Weight Error za

Observed homophobic behaviorb

Hear insulting remarks about 2.19 1.12 2.00 0.28 0.042 1.46 0.77 1.00 0.53 0.041 215.687*
him/her
Read insulting remarks about 1.18 0.52 1.00 0.65 0.030 1.11 0.42 1.00 0.69 0.032 23.086*
him/her (e.g., graffiti)
See him/her being isolated or 1.31 0.72 1.00 0.56 0.054 1.14 0.50 1.00 0.69 0.048 26.146*
marginalized
Hear malicious gossip about 1.92 1.00 2.00 0.79 0.035 1.52 0.83 1.00 0.80 0.037 210.184*
him/her
Witness him/her being teased 2.18 1.10 2.00 0.68 0.035 1.53 0.86 1.00 0.73 0.028 214.799*
Witness theft or harm to his/ 1.21 0.60 1.00 0.85 0.032 1.06 0.33 1.00 0.80 0.029 26.961*
her property
See him/her being physically 1.12 0.47 1.00 0.84 0.025 1.04 0.29 1.00 0.90 0.040 24.524*
assaulted (e.g., being
punched or kicked)
See him/her being touched 1.16 0.51 1.00 0.87 0.030 1.08 0.41 1.00 0.98 0.036 24.290*
his/her private parts
See insulting messages or 1.13 0.44 1.00 0.84 0.049 1.11 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.034 20.941
contents through electronic
medium (e.g., chat rooms,
emails, social networks)
being sent to him/her
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)

Toward (Supposed) Gay Men Toward (Supposed) Lesbians

Standardized Standardized
Regression Standard Regression Standard
M SD Mdn Weight Error M SD Mdn Weight Error za

Homophobic behaviorc
Write insulting remarks about 1.03 0.22 1.00 0.58 0.055 1.01 0.15 1.00 0.62 0.046 22.372*
him/her (e.g., graffiti)
Isolate or marginalize him/her 1.10 0.43 1.00 0.79 0.053 1.05 0.27 1.00 0.83 0.062 23.192*
Start negative rumors about 1.27 0.60 1.00 0.83 0.037 1.15 0.48 1.00 0.80 0.042 26.171*
him/her
Tease him/her 1.33 0.65 1.00 0.69 0.033 1.18 0.52 1.00 0.74 0.035 26.639*
Steal or harm his/her 1.05 0.32 1.00 0.96 0.029 1.03 0.28 1.00 1.01 0.012 22.025*
property
Physically assault (e.g., being 1.05 0.33 1.00 0.93 0.021 1.02 0.21 1.00 0.96 0.027 22.073*
punched or kicked) him/her
Touch his/her private parts 1.05 0.32 1.00 0.97 0.020 1.06 0.35 1.00 0.94 0.029 20.601c
Send him/her insulting 1.04 0.28 1.00 0.95 0.022 1.04 0.30 1.00 0.96 0.019 20.434c
messages or contents
through electronic medium
(e.g., chat rooms, emails,
social networks)

a. z-Scores refers to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

b. The questions were introduced by the following statement: Think about a student who is perceived as gay (or lesbian). Because of this, during the past 30 days,
how often did you . . . Response options include Never (1), 1, 2, or 3 times (2), about once a week (3), more than once a week (4).
c. The questions were introduced by the following statement: Think about a student who is perceived as gay (or lesbian). Because of this, during the past 30 days,
how often did you . . . Response options include Never (1), 1, 2, or 3 times (2), about once a week (3), more than once a week (4).
*p \ .05, two-tailed.

657
658 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

Table 2. Summary of Parameter Estimates and Descriptive Statistics for Homophobic

Victimization (Victim Perspective)

Standardized
Regression Standard
Victimization Behavior M SD Mdn Weight Error

Write insulting remarks about 1.02 0.15 1.00 0.65 0.065

him/her (e.g., graffiti)
Isolate or marginalize him/her 1.04 0.26 1.00 0.68 0.098
Start negative rumors about 1.08 0.35 1.00 0.89 0.038
him/her
Tease him/her 1.11 0.43 1.00 0.82 0.033
Steal or harm his/her property 1.04 0.28 1.00 0.98 0.025
Physically assault (e.g., being 1.02 0.20 1.00 0.99 0.016
punched or kicked) him/her
Touch his/her private parts 1.04 0.28 1.00 0.86 0.055
Send him/her insulting messages 1.05 0.34 1.00 0.96 0.038
or contents through electronic
medium (e.g., chat rooms,
emails, social networks)

Note. The questions were introduced by the following statement: Think about a student who is
perceived as gay (or lesbian). Because of this, during the past 30 days, how often did you . . . Response
options include Never (1), 1, 2, or 3 times (2), about once a week (3), more than once a week (4).

lower-bound threshold value, there were 332 students (38.47%) who perpetrated
homophobic aggression behaviors at school.
Second, the number of victims of homophobic bullying was computed, taking into
account the answers to the eight items of the Victimization Behavior Scale. When
about once a week was used as the lower-bound threshold value, the total number
of victims was 30, or 3.47% of all students. When 1 or 2 times was used as the
lower-bound threshold value, there were 111 (12.86%) victims of homophobic
aggression behaviors at school.
Table 3 shows nonparametric correlations and descriptive statistics for the nine
factors and for age and gender. With the exception of observation of aggressive beha-
vior toward lesbians and homophobic aggressive behavior toward lesbians, female
participants reported lower scores on all the variables compared with male partici-
pants. A younger age was associated with higher scores on observation of aggressive
behavior toward gay men, attitudes toward gay men, attitudes toward lesbians, homo-
phobic epithets victimization (Target scale of the HCAT), and homophobic victimiza-
tion. Significant and positive relationships between homophobic aggressive behavior
(toward gay men and lesbians) and negative attitudes (toward gay men and lesbians)
were found. However, the size of the correlation coefficients was small. Furthermore,
medium to large correlation coefficients were found between the Agent scale of the
HCAT and homophobic aggressive behavior toward gay men and lesbians. Finally, a
 Table 3. Nonparametric Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gendera .02 2.07* .08** 2.33** 2.15** 2.24** 2.02 2.20** 2.28** 2.11**
2. Age 17.26 1.59 2.06* 2.02 2.09** 2.10** 2.05 2.02 .01 2.06* 2.10**
3. Observation of aggressive behavior 1.50 0.49 .82 .32** .11** .07** .39** .20** .26** .15** .17**
toward gay men
4. Observation of aggressive behavior 1.22 0.35 .83 .02 .04 .29** .39** .20** .11** .17**
toward lesbians
5. Attitudes toward gay men 2.44 0.77 .94 .69** .22** .13** .21** .02 .05
6. Attitudes toward lesbians 2.35 0.70 .93 .16** .18** .13** 2.04 .05
7. Homophobic aggressive behavior 1.11 0.27 .82 .49** .43** .18** .20**
toward gay men (Bully perspective)
8. Homophobic aggressive behavior 1.07 0.23 .87 .30** .11** .21**
toward lesbians (Bully perspective)
9. HCATAgent scale 1.42 0.46 .75 .26** .08**
10. HCATTarget scale 1.25 0.43 .70 .31**
11. Homophobic victimization (Victim 1.05 0.21 .86
perspective)

Note. HCAT = Homophobic Content Agent Target scale. Ns range from 793 to 858.
a. Gender was coded as 1 for men and 2 for women.
*p \ .05. **p \ .01, two-tailed.

659
660 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

medium coefficient was found between the Target scale of the HCAT and homopho-
bic victimization (Victim perspective). The scores for observation of aggressive beha-
vior toward gay men and lesbians were significantly, but moderately, related to the
Target scale and the Agent scale of the HCAT.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to develop and investigate the psychometric properties of
the Homophobic Bullying Scale. This instrument differs from the HCAT scale (which
measures the extent to which students use and are called homophobic epithets; Poteat
& Espelage, 2005), because it collects information about homophobic bullying beha-
viors other than the use of homophobic epithets from different viewpoints: witnesses,
bullies, and victims. Additionally, this instrument differentiates between bullying
behaviors toward gay men and toward lesbians, in accordance with the literature
(e.g., Kosciw et al., 2010; Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Prati et al., 2011). As a matter of
fact, the Homophobic Bullying Scale is composed of five scales from viewpoints of
bullies (aggression toward gay men and toward lesbians), victims, and witnesses
(aggression toward gay men and toward lesbians). In line with this literature (e.g.,
Kosciw et al., 2010; Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Prati et al., 2011), the scores produced
by this instrument showed that homophobic aggressive behaviors were more directed
toward male students in comparison with female students. Furthermore, male students
perpetrated more acts of homophobic aggression compared with female students.
However, there are two exceptions to this general pattern. First, there are small gen-
der differences in the observation of aggressive behavior: male students reported
more episodes of aggressive behavior toward gay men, whereas female students
noticed more episodes of aggressive behavior toward lesbians. Second, there are no
gender differences in the perpetration of homophobic aggressive behavior toward
lesbians.
The factor loadings for the individual items showed that the items of the
Homophobic Bullying Scale had loadings that were between .55 and 1.00, indicating
that they are appropriate indicators of their respective factors. These findings imply
that this instrument has adequate construct validity of its factor structure and add
strong support to the assumption that homophobic bullying behaviors need to be ana-
lyzed from a multidimensional perspective. One exception to this is the case of the
item Hear insulting remarks about him, which showed a low factor loading. This
finding may suggest that homophobic verbal aggression may differ from the other
behaviors. One explanation may be that verbal forms of homophobic aggression
toward (supposed) gay men (i.e., the use of homophobic epithets) have been the most
frequent (Kosciw et al., 2010, Plummer, 2001; Prati et al., 2011; Rivers, 2001) and,
therefore, may be perceived as normal.
Medium-to-small correlations were found between the five scales of the instru-
ment and both homophobic attitudes and the HCAT scale. The relatively low
Prati 661

correlation coefficients indicate that there is little shared variance between these
measures and, thus, provide evidence that the Homophobic Bullying Scale offers
unique data.
In this study, it was found that approximately 1 of 10 high school students may be
considered homophobic bullies and that 3.50% are victims of homophobic bullying.
Additionally, homophobic aggression behaviors at school (not bullying) were wide-
spread: about 4 of 10 students perpetrated homophobic aggression behaviors at school,
whereas more than 1 of 10 were victimized. It is interesting to note that the prevalence
estimates of homophobic bullies (without taking into account verbal bullying concern-
ing the use of homophobic epithets, measured by the HCAT scale) are similar and, in
some cases, higher than those reported in the literature on general bullying (without
reference to perceived sexual orientation; e.g., Delfabbro et al., 2006; Menesini,
Nocentini, & Fonzi, 2007; Nansel, Overpeck, & Pilla, 2001; OMoore & Kirkham,
2001; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). This may suggest that the use of measures not specif-
ically designed for homophobic bullying may underestimate it.
In the construction of this instrument, I chose to avoid the definition of bullying.
Although it was argued that students should be presented with a definition of bullying
before being asked whether or not they perceive themselves as victims or bullies (Solberg
& Olweus, 2003), others claim that this definition may enhance social desirability
(Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2001). Their rationale is that bullies do not define their
aggressive behaviors as bullying. This issue should be the focus of future studies.
There are some limitations to the present study. First, it is unknown whether the psy-
chometric properties of this instrument are generalizable to other countries or cultures.
Future studies can investigate differences across countries to clarify whether cultural
discrepancies exist on homophobic bullying. Second, testretest scores were not col-
lected; therefore, the stability and reliability of the instrument over time were not evalu-
ated. Consequently, studies must be conducted to show whether the instrument gives
repeatable results. Third, although this study provided evidence of construct validity,
further evidence is needed. Fourth, because the present study builds on self-report mea-
sures obtained by means of a cross-sectional design, the relationships may be inflated
because of common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
However, there are some reasons to believe that this is not the case. The one-factor
model did not fit the data well. Furthermore, the Homophobic Bullying Scale contains
well-specified observable behaviors, which require little inference when responding,
therefore reducing the influence of attitudinal and dispositional factors. Finally, it should
be noted that because cyberbullying has been evolving in the past years, it is likely that
new forms will emerge (e.g., Tokunaga, 2010). Therefore, additional studies are needed
to add new items concerning cyberbullying homophobic behaviors.

Practical Application of the Homophobic Bullying Scale and Conclusions

The use of the Homophobic Bullying Scale seems to be quite simple, because of the
small number of items (25) and their readability. The scales also may be used
662 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

separately to measure the different perspectives on homophobic bullying. The

Homophobic Bullying Scale also may be used in conjunction with the HCAT scale
(Poteat & Espelage, 2005) to tap different forms of homophobic bullying (i.e.,
including homophobic content).
When estimating the prevalence of bullying from the responses to the
Homophobic Bullying Scale, one may use commonly used operational criteria pro-
vided by Solberg and Olweus (2003). More specifically, it is possible to define bul-
lies or victims as those respondents who perpetrated or reported being subjected to at
least one negative act on at least a weekly basis during the past 30 days.
In summary, this study contributes to the academic literature by developing and
investigating the psychometric properties of the Homophobic Bullying Scale. The
instrument seems appropriate for assessing aggressive behavior at school motivated
by homophobia because good internal consistency, construct validity of its factor
structure, and discriminant validity were demonstrated; however, although the valid-
ity and reliability of this instrument seem promising, further studies are needed to
validate the Homophobic Bullying Scale. Additional suggestions for future research
include involving different age groups (e.g., middle school students).

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Marco Coppola, Marco Sacca and Rosario Murdica for their help in data
collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article:
This research was supported by the Italian Minister of Health, Labour and Social Policies
project grant titled Interventi per la prevenzione contro il bullismo a sfondo omofobico (ai
sensi della L. 383/2000, anno 2007, lett. F) in collaboration with ArcigayItalian Lesbian
Gay Association.

References
Bontempo, D. E., & DAugelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual
orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 30, 364-374. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00415-3
Cheng, Y. Y., Chen, L. M., Liu, K. S., & Chen, Y. L. (2011). Development and psychometric
evaluation of the school bullying scales: A Rasch measurement approach. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 71, 200-216. doi:10.1177/0013164410387387
Prati 663

DAugelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health
impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high
school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148-167. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.2.148.20854
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292-
307. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292
Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J., &
Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian
secondary school students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 71-90. doi:10.1348/000709904X24645
Due, P., Merlo, J., Harel-Fisch, Y., Damsgaard, M. T., Holstein, B. E., & Hetland, J., . . .
Lynch, J. (2009). Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A
comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public
Health, 99, 907-914. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.139303
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. (2001). Short-term stability and prospective
correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of potential demographic,
psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, 411-426.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual
effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531
Falanga S., Parisi A., & Di Chiacchio C. (2006). Omofobia. Una ricerca empirica italiana
[Homophobia. An empirical research in Italy]. In D. Rizzo (Ed.), Omosapiens (pp. 61-68),
Roma, Italy: Carocci.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A
meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059-1065. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1215
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review
of Psychology, 60, 549-576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251-266. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00164
Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Pagani, S. L., Pascal, S., Morin, A. J. S., & Bowen, F. (2008).
Are there detrimental effects of witnessing school violence in early adolescence? Journal
of Adolescent Health, 43, 600-608. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.011
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National
School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in
our nations schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Lingiardi, V., Falanga, S., & DAugelli, A. R. (2005). The evaluation of homophobia in an
Italian sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 81-93. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-1002-z
Menesini, E., & Giannetti, E. (1997). Il questionario sulle prepotenze per la popolazione
italiana: problemi teorici e metodologici [The Bully-victim questionnaire for the Italian
population: theoretic and methodological problems]. In A. Fonzi (Ed.), Il bullismo in Italia
(pp. 3-18). Firenze, Italy: Giunti.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Fonzi, A. (2007). Analisi longitudinale e differenze di genere
nei comportamenti aggressivi in adolescenza [Longitudinal and differential analysis of
gender in aggressive behaviors during adolescence]. Eta Evolutiva, 87, 78-85.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus users guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
664 Educational and Psychological Measurement 72(4)

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., & Pilla, R. S. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth:
Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 285, 2094-2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
OMoore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001), Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour.
Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269-283. doi:10.1002/ab.1010
Plummer, D. C. (2001). The quest for modern manhood: Masculine stereotypes, peer culture
and the social significance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 15-23. doi:10.1006/
jado.2000.0370
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Poteat, V. P. (2007). Peer group socialization of homophobic attitudes and behavior during
adolescence. Child Development, 78, 1830-1842. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01101.x
Poteat, V. P. (2008). Contextual and moderating effects of the peer group climate on use of
homophobic epithets. School Psychology Review, 37, 188-201.
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and
homophobic verbal content: The Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) Scale.
Violence and Victims, 20, 513-528.
Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Green, H. D. (2007). The socialization of dominance: Peer
group contextual effects on homophobia and dominance attitudes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 1040-1050. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1040
Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & DAugelli A. R. (2011). Aspects of homophobia in Italian high
schools: Students attitudes and perceptions of school climate. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 41, 2600-2620. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00842.x
Raja, S., & Stokes, J. P. (1998). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: The Modern
Homophobia Scale. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 3, 113-134.
doi:10.1023/A:1023244427281
Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term
correlates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 32-46.
Rivers, I. (2011). Homophobic bullying. Research and theoretical perspectives. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rivers, I., & DAugelli, A. R. (2001). The victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths:
Implications for intervention. In A. R. D. Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay,
and youths: Psychological perspectives (pp. 199-223). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003), Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268. doi:10.1002/
ab.10047
Tokunaga R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014