4.3 Article

Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Chinese version of the School Bullying Experience Questionnaire

Journal

KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages 500-505

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2012.04.008

Keywords

Adolescents; Bullying; Factor structure; Psychometric test

Funding

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan (ROC) [NSC98-2410-H-037-005-MY3, 99-2314-B-037-028-MY2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aims of this study were to examine the factor structure, internal consistency, 1-month test-retest reliability, and congruent validity of the Chinese version of the School Bullying Experience Questionnaire (C-SBEQ). Study 1, in which 5751 Taiwanese adolescents in Southern Taiwan participated, examined the adequacy of the original four-factor structure of the C-SBEQ using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and internal-consistency reliability using Cronbach alpha. Study 2, in which 108 adolescents in Southern Taiwan participated, examined the 1-month test retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). We examined the congruent validity of the C-SBEQ by examining the consistency between self-reported and teacher- and classmate-nominated experiences of bullying involvement in Study 2. The results of CFA supported the four-factor structure of the C-SBEQ in Taiwanese adolescents. The test-retest and internal reliability values of all subscales of the C-SBEQ were at acceptable to satisfactory levels. Nominated adolescents had significantly higher self-reported scores on three C-SBEQ subscales than non-nominated ones, and the levels of agreement between self-reported and nominated victims were moderate. The results of this study indicate that the C-SBEQ is appropriate for assessing bullying experiences in Taiwanese adolescents. Copyright (C) 2012, Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available