Peter J. Lovegrove

Examination of the Predictors of Latent Class Typologies of Bullying Involvement among Middle School Students

This study employs latent class analysis to construct bullying involvement typologies among 3,114 students (48% male, 58% White) in 40 middle schools across the United States. Four classes were constructed: victims (15%); bullies (13%); bully/victims (13%); and noninvolved (59%). Respondents who were male and participated in fewer conventional activities were more likely to be members of the victims class. Students who were African American and reported being less successful at school had a higher likelihood of membership in the bullies class. Bully/victims shared characteristics with bullies and victims: Students with more feelings of anger toward others and a higher tendency toward sensation-seeking had a higher likelihood of membership in the bullies and bully/victims classes, whereas lower levels of social inclusion was associated with membership in the victims and bully/victims classes.

Invalid survey response patterns among middle school students

Student surveys are widely used to assess student risk behavior, bullying, and school climate in middle schools; however, because such surveys are usually conducted on an anonymous basis, little is known about the validity of student reports using external, independent criteria. This longitudinal study examined the response patterns of 382 middle school students who completed confidential (not anonymous) self-report surveys each fall and spring for 3 years of middle school (Grades 6-8). Approximately 10% of students in each wave indicated on validity screening questions that they were either not telling the truth or not paying attention (termed invalid responders). A repeated measures latent class analysis found that students could be classified into a large group (64%) that was never flagged by the validity questions and a smaller group (36%) that occasionally reported not telling the truth or not paying attention. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses found that invalid responding to validity questions was associated with higher self-reported rates of risk behavior and more negative perceptions of school climate. Based on independent criteria from school records, invalid responding students were more likely to be referred for disciplinary infractions than other students. This study provides new information about student survey validity and appears to be the first to identify characteristics of students who generate invalid response patterns.

Putting Parolees Back in Prison Discretion and the Parole Revocation Process

As the prison population in the United States has ballooned over the past 30 years, people entering prison for parole revocation have come to constitute an increasingly large percentage of all prison admissions (35% in 2006). As a result, researchers have begun to turn their attention toward this criminal justice decision-making point to examine the factors that relate to why an individual is returned to prison. Notably, this developing body of research focuses almost entirely on one decision maker: the parole board who ultimately determines whether or not an individual on parole stays in the community, receives alternative sanctions, or returns to prison. Notably, this ignores the fact that parole revocation is a process beginning with the parolee who commits a violation behavior, turning next to the parole officer who uses his or her discretionary power to determine whether or not to file a complaint, and ending with the decision of the parole board. In this article, we examine each stage of this revocation process using structured qualitative interviews with 35 parole officers as well as quantitative data on 300 individuals on parole in Colorado between 2006 and 2007, who we followed for an 18-month period. We find that parolees with mental health needs commit significantly more technical violations; that race, gender, age, and measures of parolee effort affect whether a parole officer files a complaint; and that the decision made by the parole board is either largely random or driven by variables unspecified in our models.

“My Voice Is Not Going to Be Silent”: What Can Parents Do About Children’s Bullying?

The child development literature gives a resounding affirmation that parents matter in instances when a child is bullying others or being victimized. However, not all actions taken by parents are effective, and at the same time, some parents may elect to respond to childrens bullying with inaction. We briefly present advice and information for parents as to the importance of their involvement, and seek to identify the ways of getting involved that might be most helpful. Aspects of the theoretical and empirical literature concerning parental responses to bullying are reviewed. A summary is then given of some common recommendations for parents made by current online resources. Next, we describe legal issues that are important for parents to know, and end by highlighting some specific areas where more research is needed.

Stress Mitigation to Promote Development of Prosocial Values and School Engagement of Inner-City Urban African American and Latino Youth

Studies of predictors of development of young men of color have been primarily focused on factors that impede positive development rather than factors that promote it. There are also few examples of longitudinal studies of positive development of this population and few that consider multiple protective factors simultaneously. Little is also known about how such positive outcomes might relate to prediction of problematic functioning. This study tests a developmental-ecological framework of positive and risky development among a sample of young men of color growing up in high-risk urban environments. African American and Latino adolescent males (148 African American, 193 Latino) were followed from early to late adolescence. Stress in early adolescence was related to school engagement and prosocial values as well as depressive symptoms and problems assessed 2 years later. The role of family and individual protective factors as direct effects and as mitigating the stress-outcome relation were also tested. Stress predicted problem outcomes but not positive functioning. Early engagement in prosocial activities and coping skills did predict positive outcomes. In contrast, problem outcomes were predicted directly by stress, with some indication of interaction with some protective factors for both such outcomes. Overall results suggest value in focusing on positive outcomes along with negative outcomes, as they are not the antithesis and have some shared but some different predictors. Implications for supporting positive development are presented.