1 Research
Prevalence School Bullying and Relation with Academic Achievements Among Junior High School Students
By
Made Ayu Cynthia Windasari
Supervisors:
Prof. dr. Soetjiningsih, Sp.A(K)
Dr. dr. I Gusti Ayu Trisna Windiani, Sp.A(K) dr. I Gusti Agung Ngurah Sugitha Adnyana, Sp.A
dr. I Gusti Ayu Endah Ardjana, Sp.KJ (K)
CHILD HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEDICAL FACULTY UDAYANA UNIVERSITY SANGLAH GENERAL HOSPITAL
2
Prevalence School Bullying and Relation with Academic Achievements
Among Junior High School Students
Made Ayu Cynthia Windasari, Soetjiningsih, I Gusti Ayu Trisna Windiani, I Gusti Agung Ngurah Sugitha Adnyana, I Gusti Ayu Endah Ardjana
Child health department, Medical faculty, Udayana University, Sanglah Hospital, Denpasar
Abstract
Background: Bullying is any negative activity or aggresive behavior which is intended to harm others. Children and adolescents are highly susceptible groups to this problem. One of the bullying impact is low academic achievement. The data that displays on prevalence bullying and relation between bullying and academic achievement for adolescents in Bali is still limited.
Objectives: To know prevalence bullying and relation between bullying and academic achievement for adolescents in Bali
Methods: This study was cross-sectional analytical study, conducted at 4 Junior High School in Denpasar city on June 2015. Data were obtained from questionnaires which fill by subjects. The Adolescent peer relations instrument (APRI) was used to determine the involvement of bullying in this study. Subjects including groups involved in bullying if the total score on each part of APRI > 18.
Results: One hundred and sixty Junior high school students participated in this study. From total 160 subjects, 74 subjects (46.25%) are involve in bullying as bullies, victim, also bullies and victim, 86 subjects (53.75%) are not involve in bullying. After analysis, academic achievement from those who was involved in any bullying cases is significantly lower (3.38 ± 0.09 SD) when compared with the group of students who was involved in bullying cases (3.42 ± 0.12 SD).
Conclusions: The prevalence of bullying among junior high school students in Denpasar obtained by 46.25%. Students involved in bullying have significantly lower academic achievement compared with students who are not involved bullying.
3
Prevalensi
Bullyingdan Hubungannya dengan Prestasi Akademik
pada Siswa Sekolah Menengah Pertama
Made Ayu Cynthia Windasari, Soetjiningsih, I Gusti Ayu Trisna Windiani, I Gusti Agung Ngurah Sugitha Adnyana, I Gusti Ayu Endah Ardjana
Bagian Ilmu Kesehatan Anak, Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Udayana, Rumah Sakit Sanglah Denpasar
Abstrak
Latar belakang: Bullying merupakan perilaku agresif negatif yang bertujuan untuk menyakiti individu lain.Anak-anak dan remaja merupakan kelompok yang paling rentan mengalami hal tersebut. Salah satu dampak bullying adalah prestasi akademik yang rendah. Data tentang prevalensi bullying dan hubungan dengan prestasi akademik pada remaja di Bali masih terbatas.
Tujuan: Mengetahui prevalensi bullying pada remaja serta hubungannya dengan prestasi akademik remaja di Bali..
Metode: Penelitian potong lintang analitik dilaksanakan pada empat Sekolah Menengah Umum Pertama (SMP) di Kotamadya Denpasar pada bulan Juni 2015. Adolescent peer relations instrument (APRI) digunakan untuk mengetahui adanya keterlibatan bullying. Subjek termasuk kelompok terlibat bullying apabila skor total pada tiap bagian dari APRI > 18.
Hasil: Terdapat 160 pelajar SMP yang mengikuti penelitian. Tujuh puluh empat orang (46.25%) terlibat bullying dan 86 orang (53,75%) tidak terlibat bullying. Prestasi akademik pada siswa yang terlibat bullying lebih rendah (3,38±0,09 SD) bermakna dibandingkan dengan siswa yang tidak terlibat bullying (3,42±0,12 SD).
Simpulan: Prevalensi bullying pada siswa SMP di Denpasar adalah 46,25%. Prestasi akademik pada siswa yang terlibat bullying lebih rendah secara bermakna dibandingkan dengan siswa yang tidak terlibat bullying.
4 Introduction
Bullying is any negative activity or aggresive behavior which is intended to harm or disturb others.1 This phenomenon refers to various kinds of physical aggression, verbal and psychologycal performed repeatedly within a certain period of time and there is an imbalance of power, with a more powerful person or group attacking a less powerful one. Children and adolescents are highly susceptible groups to this problem.1,2 Worldwide it is expected as much as 15-30% students have been involved bullying. Specifically, 13% students are reported as bullies, 11% as victims and 6% as bullies and also victim.3 Most case of bullying in children and adolescents took place in schools and its prevalence was increased every year. Studies by Olweus found an increasing number of victims by 50% from 1983 to 2001 on 11.000 primary and secondary school student in the United State of America.4
The incidence of bullying among students, increasing since elementary school, a peak in Junior High School and thereafter tend to decline.1,3 Self-reported
questionnaires assessments method is a method for measuring a bullying behavior that is widely used, by filling the questionnaire independently by the students. Adolescent
peer relations instrument (APRI) is one method to detect bullying behavior in adolescents aged 12-17 years. This instrument consist of 36 questions with good reliability (Cronbach alpha value of 0.95).5
5 Materials and Methods
This study is a cross-sectional analytical study, conducted at 4 Junior High School (SMP) in Denpasar city which consists of 2 public school, SMP Negeri 3 and SMP Negeri 4 Denpasar, as well as two private school, SMP Dwijendra and SMP Harapan in June 2015. This study was included private and public school, because of suggesting prevalence difference between both of two. The election of SMP Negeri 3, SMP Negeri 4, SMP Dwijendra and SMP Harapan related on permission obtained from their headmaster, their student have IQ test result, also their short distance and reachable
Based on Fischer formula with precision estimation set at 5%, the minimum sample size required is 151 (rounded up to 160 students). In this study involve 40 students from each school. Sample selection is done by purposive sampling. Determination of the initial samples in each school was done by random method with dropping the tip of a pencil on a sheet of student attendance. The samples were then selected based on the formula N/n of the population (N: number of students on each
grade in Junior High School and n: number of student required (40)). In accordance with the order numbers attendance of students so each student to-n which satisfy the
eligibility criteria were included in the study.
Samples were students of SMP Negeri 3, SMP Negeri 4, SMP Dwijendra and SMP Harapan Denpasar which meet the eligibility criteria. Inclusion criteria in the study were junior high school students grades 1, 2 and 3 in SMP Negeri 3, SMP Negeri 4, SMP Dwijendra and SMP Harapan Denpasar on June 2015. The exclusion criterias were if a student unwilling to participate in the study, did not sign the informed consent, in a state of chronic disease and if the data on the questionnaire was incomplete.
6 different person). Backward translation conducted by researcher and English lecturer at Udayana University under the supervision of the Pediatric Growth and Development Division of Medical Faculty in Udayana University. Psychometric analysis performed before questionnaire used (APRI and PSC-Y questionnaire) through reliability assessment. Instrument test conducted on 30 Harapan junior high school students and produce good reliability (Cronbach's α 0.98 for APRI and Cronbach's α of 0.97 for the Y-PSC).
One day before sample participated in this study, they reminded to looking back their IQ test result (IQ test has already done at the beginning of their school years) and also their academic achievement. At starting data collection, the researchers explain the objective of this study, how to fill out the questionnaire, as well as informed consent to the students. Students who agree to get involved to this study and signed an informed consent sheet then included in the study. Students instructed to fill identity form first (without write their name) which include age, sex, type of school, IQ test result, parent’s income, parent’s education, study hour at home per day and academic achievement. Then they answer APRI and PSC-Y questionnaires. Every student who has completely
7 experiencing physical bullying when total score of the question section B number 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16 equals to > 6, categorized as experiencing verbal bullying if total score of the question section B number 1, 4, 7, 11, 13, 18 equals to > 6 and categorized as having social bullying when total score of the question section B number 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 equals to> 6.5 Physical bullying, or bullying with aggressive physical intimidation, involves repeated hitting, kicking, tripping, blocking, pushing, and touching in unwanted and inappropriate ways. Verbal bullying, or bullying with cruel spoken words, involves ongoing name-calling, threatening, and making disrespectful comments about someone's attributes such as appearance, religion, ethnicity and disability. Social bullying involves spreading rumors about another person, purposely leaving someone out of an activity or embarrassing a person in public.4
While the PSC for youth consists of 35 questions with 3 measurement scale is 0 (never); 1 (sometimes); 2 (often). If the total score ≥ 30, students was categorized as having emotional and behavioral disorders. The PSC assessment has three subscales
which are attention, internalization and externalization. The attention subscale is reflected in the question number 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, revealed having attention problem if the
total score > 7. The internalization subscale reflected in the question number 11, 13, 19, 22, 27, revealed having internalization problem when the total score > 5. The externalization subscale reflected in the question number 16, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 otherwise having externalization problem if the total score > 7.8
Academic achievement was the learning results obtained by students which expressed in symbols or numbers in a particular period stated in the value (point) in report cards or raport. Academic achievement in this study will be measured based on the mean point reached by the students and are listed in the point of the last semester report cards or raport before the study was conducted.7 Chronic disease was a systemic disease or disease attack certain organs, symptoms and require treatment for more than 3 months.
8 Denpasar city which describe in upah minimum regional (UMR , Rp.1.561.000).10 Low economic level when the average income of the parents <Rp.1,500,000 per month. The middle economic level when the average of the parents’s monthly income Rp.1.500.000- Rp.2,500,000. High Economic level when the average income of the parents > Rp. 2,500,000 per month.9
The mean hours of home-study per day refers to a specific time a student assigns for himself or herself to study in order to acquire knowledge, beyond the time spent in school and in a tutoring/course.11 Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is a value of intellectual ability, analysis, logic, and the ratio of a person who is classified into a low IQ level or mental retardation if the value of IQ 0-79; low IQ levels were still within the normal ranges when IQ score 80-90; normal IQ level or average when the value of IQ 91-110; High IQ level when the value of IQ 111-120; superior IQ level when the value of IQ 120-130, and very superior IQ level or genius when IQ scores 131 or more.12
The data analysis of this study using computer program. The normality of data
was assessed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Comparison of academic achievement among students who do involved bullying and who do not was assessed by independent
T test, if the independent T test requirements are fulfilled, a P value <0.05 was considered to be significant. Anova test was used for multivariate analysis as the dependent variable in this study was numerical variables.
This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty
of Medicine, Udayana University/ Sanglah General Hospital. Study was conducted
under the supervision of Pediatric Growth and Development Division, Medical Faculty
of Udayana University.
Results
9 Tabel 1. Subject Characteristics
n: number of subject
Based on the total score on each part of APRI questionnaire, involvement of bullying distinguished by bullies, victim, or both bullies and victim. At the subscale ratings of parts A and B from APRI questionnaires, categorizing types of bullying experiences also conducted among students. Characteristics sample which involved in bullying listed in Table 2.
Variable Involvement in Bullying
Involved (N=74) Not Involved (N=86) School
10 Table 2. Characteristics Subject which Involved in Bullying
Variable N=74
Bullying status Bullies, n, % Victim, n, %
Bullies and victim, n, %
24 (32.4) 22 (29.7) 28 (37.8)
Type of bullying Physical, n, % Verbal, n, % Social, n, %
19 (25.6) 31(41.8) 24 (32.4)
n: number of subject
The number of samples in the study amounted to more than 50 people; there were 160 people to be exact. The data normality test used was the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data distribution of all variables were normal, except for variable academic achievement. Academic achievement that reflected in the value report was not normal; then data transformed by log function to normalize the data distribution. As academic achievement data that has been transformed, normality test obtained p> 0.05 thus concluded that the data were normally distributed.
11 Table 3. Relation Variables with Academic Achievement
Further analyzed among the group of students who was involved in bullying, showed that victims have the lowest academic achievement (3.34 ± 0.06 SD) compared with bullies (3.41 ± 0.09 SD) and both bullies and victim (3.39 ± 0.09 SD).
Discussion
The research took place from June 10th 2015 until June 30th 2015 at four Junior High School in Denpasar, which is two public school, SMP Negeri 3 Denpasar and SMP Negeri 4 Denpasar, as well as two private school namely SMP Dwijendra and SMP Harapan. Forty students grade 1 and 2 from each school participated in the study. All
12 data on the questionnaire was complete so that samples studied amounted to 160 students with male subject were comparable with female. The age range of the subjects was 12 years to 15 years. Subject’s parents mostly have high education, graduated from college. More than half of the subjects were classified in moderate economic status.
In our study, 46.25% of the subjects involved in bullying, either as bullies, victim, or both bullies and victim. Number of bullies and victim groups was higher (37.8%) compared with the bullies alone (22.4%) and victims alone (29.7%). Study before 2010 reported worldwide bullying was expected as much as 15-30% students have been involved bullying. Specifically, 13% students were bullies, 11% were victims and 6% were reported as bullies and also victim.Research in the United States showed the prevalence of bullying in elementary and junior high school students reached 30%.3 Results of a survey in Australia showed that 20% of students experience bullying at least once a week. Most cases occur in teenager at grade 8 and 9 and was done more often by boys.13 Studies in England showed the prevalence of bullying range around
4-19%, while the prevalence of bullies and victims in Japan around 10% and 15%.14 Recent studies showed incidence of bullying become higher. The prevalence range of
victimization at the middle school was 41-60% in the Africa and Middle East.15 Study by Flisher16 in 2012, bullying has been reported to be as high as 61% in high school students in Tshwan. Study in Northen Ireland in 2010 reported 40% primary school students had been bullied.17
13 In this studied, the most common type of bullying was verbal bullying, followed by social and physical bullying. There are three type of bullying, physical, verbal and social bullying. Physical bullying, or bullying with aggressive physical intimidation, involves repeated hitting, kicking, tripping, blocking, pushing, and touching in unwanted and inappropriate ways. Verbal bullying, or bullying with cruel spoken words, involves ongoing name-calling, threatening, and making disrespectful comments about someone's attributes such as appearance, religion, ethnicity and disability. Social bullying involves spreading rumors about another person, purposely leaving someone out of an activity or embarrassing a person in public.4,17 Based on Olweus4, the most common form of bullying in school is a mockery, followed by beatings, threats, and the spread of rumors. Veiskarami, et al17 study showed that boy more than girls become victims in direct form of bullying, including verbal and physical bullying.This finding consistent with other research by Cheragi, et al18 which reported rate of verbal victimization in first and secondary high school significantly higher.Study
of Canadian children in grade 4 to 12 found that 21% of children reported being physically bullied; 48%, verbally bullied and 30% socialy bullied.1 In most
cultures,male have more freedom to express their feelings and use of direct and overt aggression and bullying. While girls are taught to avoid direct and aggressive behaviors, so they show those negativities in other indirect bullying such as gossip and social isolation.17
In the United States, male are more involved in bullying than female with a prevalence of about 14% of boys and 9% of girls.15 Among youth participant in Canada bullying research, found that 42% were males and 34% were females.1 Our study found that males were more involved in bullying than females. In general, it is said that males were more frequently involved in bullying than females. Most research on aggression has found that males showed significantly higher levels of aggression than females. However, gender differences in bullying is less consistent.13,14
14 that would lead to a higher probability of bullying being detected. Private schools also have more resources and programs to help students stay out of trouble. Studies by the National Center for Education Statistics showed that bullying was less prevalent in private schools than in public schools.14,16
Our study found that students who were involved in bullying have significant lower academic achievements than student who were not involved in bullying. A study conducted in British among adolescents aged 8-13 years found a significant but weak correlation between student bullied by level of academic competence (r = -0.41) and also found a significant weaker correlation (r = -0.27), between bullies with levels of academic competence.13 Research by Juvonen et al19 among 12-15 year old students (middle school) found a significant relationship between the students involved in bullying with lower grade point average (GPA). Another study by Schwartz, et al20, reported students who were both bullied and victimized suffered lower academic competence of the same magnitude as bullies. This study was not in line with research
by Nansel et al which found no significant association between involvement as a victim or bully/victim with academic achievement. However a significant relationship emerged
for bullies. They were 1.8 times more likely to have lower academic achievement.3 Lower academic achievement is attributed to low school adjustment, low school bonding, high school alienation, avoidance of school and often absent in school. Students involved in bullying have low levels of school adjustment (doing well on school work, following the rules, doing homework) and school bonding (desire to do well at school, being happy at school, taking school seriously). This relationship was significantly stronger among students who are involved as bullies and victims group, followed by bullies and weakest relationship but meaningful obtained on victims.20 Natvig et al on his study get school alienation (opposite of school bonding) related to victim group. Bullies obtained 2.1 times higher on school alienate.22 Juvonen et al found significant correlation (r = 0.16) between bullying with student absenteeism at school, with the victim absent more often than the bullies.19
15 among students in Peru.Study in Nigeria showed that there was a significant difference between the long and short study time behaviour student’s academic performance. Students who study for long hours tend to perform better than those who study for short study time.11 Anees, et al12 reported a significant positive correlation between intelligence and academic achievement with correlation coefficient of 0.70 among high school students in Aligarh. Many factor, including internal and external factor show significant correlation with academic achievement, but this finding was not consistence.24 In this study found no significant difference in academic achievement between student with difference IQ scores, daily study hours, economic status, presence of behavioral disorder and parental education level. Although students with high IQ typically perform well in school, we cannot decide conclusively that their high achievement is actually the result of their intelligence. Intelligence probably does play an important role in school achievement, but many other factors for instance motivation, school climate, family resources, parental support, and peer group expectations may
also influence. The longer the time interval between two measures of intelligence, the greater the fluctuation in IQ, especially when initial measures were taken in the early
years. IQ scores and other measures of cognitive ability often increase over time when children are highly motivated, independent learners and when adults provide stimulating activities and a variety of reading materials.12,24
Children with any psychological disorder such as conduct disorder were more likely to have bullied other children.23 A conduct disorder is any behavior that is repeated on the part of the child exhibiting the behaviors, and includes any behaviors in the range of what are considered to be “antisocial type behaviors in childhood or adolescence.” Children or adolescents with conduct disorder have behaviors like defiance, disruptiveness, delinquent behaviors (physical violence, property destruction, law-breaking, reckless thrill-seeking) and antisocial behaviors (disrespect of others, irresponsibility, and dishonesty).19,21
16 number of samples. In the data collection process, the questionnaire used did not include the name or the name of the school. It was conducted to maintain confidentiality and the convenience sample in filling the questionnaire.
The limitations of this study, first, this study design was cross-sectional. Variables measurement in each subjects performed only one time, there was no follow-up procedure. Second, the data obtained through questionnaires filled directly by the sample which is strongly influenced by openness, honesty, feelings, and emotions while filling the questionnaire. Third, this study did not examine all factors that may affect the academic achievement such as learning motivation and school climate. These factors were difficult to measure and very personal, that measurement of these parameters should be done through in-depth interviews and felt more appropriate. Fourth, this study did not measure the decline in student achievement, where the variable is more appropriate to compare the effects of bullying. The research carried out after the first semester, before the second semester, so students only have one value report cards that
were included as research data. The results are expected to be useful primarily as a baseline for future research. Based on some of the weaknesses of this study, further
research needs to be conducted with a prospective study design, involving a larger number of samples, as well as collecting data through in-depth interviews to gain a better research results.
Conclusion
The prevalence of bullying among junior high school students in Denpasar obtained by 46.25%. Most of students experienced verbal bullying. Students involved in bullying have significantly lower academic achievement compared with students who were not involved bullying.
Acknowledgement
17 REFFERENCES
1. Lemstra M, Rogers M, Redgate L, Garner M, Moraros J. Prevalence, risk indicators and outcomes of bullying among on-reserve first nations youth. Can J Public Health. 2011;102:462-6.
2. Kowalski RM and Limber SP. Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. J adolesc health. 2013;53:13-9.
3. Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan J, Morton BM, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA. 2001;285:2094-100.
4. Olweus D and Solberg ME. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Willey-Liss inc. 2003;29:239-68. Available from: URL: http://www. interscience.wiley.com. Accessed March 15, 2015. 5. Jamir T, Devi NP, Lenin RK, Roshan L, Sameeta N. The relationship between
bullying victimization, self–esteem and depression among school going adolescents. IJMSS. 2014;12:477-89.
6. Holt MK, Finkelhor D and Kantor GK. Multiple victimization experiences of urban elementary school students: associations with psychosocial functioning and academic performance. Psych J. 2007;31:1-5.
7. Dwipayanti IAS and Indrawati KR. Hubungan antara tindakan bullying dengan prestasi belajar anak korban bullying pada tingkat sekolah dasar. Jurnal psikologi udayana. 2014;1:251-60.
8. Gall G, Pagano ME, Desmond MS, Perrin JM, Murphy JM. Utility of psychosocial screening at a school-based health center. J Sch Health. 2000;70:292–8.
9. Anonym. Sosial dan kependudukan. Available from: URL: http://www. bps.go.id. Accessed March 15, 2015.
10.Antara. Upah minimum regional kota denpasar. Available from: URL: http://www. republika.co.id. Accessed March 15, 2015.
11.Ukpong DE and George IN. Length of Study-Time Behaviour and Academic Achievement of Social Studies Education Students in the University of Uyo. International Education Study. 2013; 6;172-178.
12. Anees A. A study of academic Achievement in relation to intelligence of class VII students. Excellence International Journal Of Education And Research. 2013;1:238-49.
13.Dake JA, Price JJH, Telljohann SK. The nature and extent of bullying at school. J Sch Health. 2003;73:173-80.
14.Glew GM, Frey KS, Walker WO. Bullying update:are we making any progress?. Peds in review J. 2010;31:68-74.
15.Fleming LC and Jacobsen KH. Bullying among middle-school students in low and middle income countries. Health promotion international advance. 2010;25:73-84.
16.Ndebele C and Msiza D. An analysis of the prevalence and effects of bullying at a remote rural school in eastern cape province of south Africa: lessons for school principals. Stud tribes tribals. 2014;12:113-24.
18 18.Cheragi A and Piskin M. A comparation of peer bullying among high school students in iran and turkey. Procedia social and behavioral sciences. 2011;15: 2510-20.
19.Juvonen J, Nishina A, Graham S. Peer harassment, psychological adjustment and school functioning in early adolescence. J educ psychol. 2000;92:349-59. 20.Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Friendship as a moderating factor
in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group. Dev psycho. 2000;36:646-62.
21.Haynie D, Nansel T, Eitel P. Bullies, victims and bully/victims: distinct groups of at risk youth. J early adolesc. 2001;21:29-49.
22.Natvig GK, Albrektsen G, Qvarnstrom U. School-related stress experience as a risk factor for bullying behavior. J youth adolesc. 2001;30:561-75.
23.Millones DLM, Leeuwen KV, Ghesquiere P. Associations between psychosocial functioning and academic achievements: the Peruvian case. 2013. Javeriana;12:725-37.
