Running head: CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

1

Education for Parents to Effectively Reduce Cyberbullying and Cyber-Victimization
Kelsy Streeter1 and Ann Guthery2
Arizona State University
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the project, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Authors’ Roles
Kelsy Streeter: Conducted the project discussed in this paper and prepared the manuscript.
Ann Guthery: Provided project oversight and reviewed the manuscript for editing and to provide
recommendations for appropriate modifications.

1

Kelsy Streeter, BSN, RN-BC, student Arizona State University, kelsy.streeter@asu.edu
Ann Guthery, PhD, RN, PMHNP-BC, professor Arizona State University,
Ann.Guthery@asu.edu
2

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

2
Abstract

Background: Cyberbullying and cyber-victimization are rising problems and are associated with
increased risk for mental health problems in children. Methods for addressing cyberbullying are
limited, however, interventions focused on promoting appropriate parental mediation strategies
are a promising solution supported by evidence and by guided by the Theory of Parenting Styles.
Objective: To provide an educational session to parents of middle school students that promotes
effective methods of preventing and addressing cyberbullying incidents. Design: The
educational sessions were provided to eight parents middle school student. Surveys to assess
parent perception of and planned response to cyberbullying incidents and Parent Adolescent
Communication Scale (PACS) scores were collected pre-presentation, post-presentation, and at
one-month follow up. Results: Data analysis of pre- and post-presentation PACS using a
Wilcoxon test found no significant difference (Z = -.405, p >.05). There was not enough
response to the 1-month follow-up to perform a data analysis on follow-up data. Conclusions:
Due to low attendance and participation in the follow-up survey the results of this project are
limited. However, parents did appear to benefit from communicating concerns about
cyberbullying with school officials. Future studies should examine if a school-wide anticyberbullying program that actively involves parents effects parental response to cyberbullying.
Keywords: Cyberbullying, cyber-victimization, parental mediation, parent education, middle
school.

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

3

Cyberbullying in Middle School Students
Approximately 92% of teens, ages 13-17, report that they surf the internet at least once a
day with over half reporting internet use several times a day, and 24% are on the internet almost
constantly (Pew Research Center, 2015). According to the Pew Research Center (2015) the
ability to have constant access to the internet is made possible by the increasing availability of
smartphones, with an estimated 73% of teens owning one. While teenagers use the internet for a
variety of purposes, 76% use it to access social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram,
Snapchat, and Twitter (Pew Research Center, 2015). Children use these sites to communicate
with friends, family, and the online networks about ideas and experiences; however, negative
messages can also be communicated using these sites. As internet, social media, and cellphone
use has become more frequent among children and teenagers a new form of bullying called
cyberbullying has emerged.
Background and Significance
Cyberbullying (CB) occurs over the internet, social media, discussion boards, chat rooms,
or texting and it can come in many forms such as rumor spreading, posting embarrassing
pictures, or threatening messages (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). No
matter how perpetrators target victims, CB usually shares a few key traits with traditional
bullying: it is repetitive, it is aggressive, and it takes advantage of a power imbalance between
the perpetrator and the victim (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). However,
there are ways that CB can be more damaging than traditional forms. In CB, negative messages
can be easily spread and reproduced by peers, can be sent and received 24/7, can feel permanent,
and can be revisited repeatedly (Kowalski et al., 2014). Additionally, these messages are not

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

4

limited to just one setting; if a student has a laptop, tablet, and smartphone then the message can
reach them wherever they are, even in the safety of their home.
In 2013, the CDC surveyed students in grades 9th thru 12th and found that 14.8% had been
victims of CB during the previous 12 months (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2014). The effects of CB on victims can include mental health problems and problematic
behaviors. From a mental health perspective, victims are more likely to suffer from anxiety,
depression, fear, stress, loneliness, and emotional problems (Baas, Jong, & Drossaert, 2013;
Gámez-Guadix, Orue, Smith, & Calvete, 2013; Kowalksi, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner,
2014; Sahin, 2012). Additionally, adolescents who are victims of CB are more likely to have
problems with substance use and abuse (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014;
Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013; Kowalksi et al., 2014). Peer-victimization can lead to increased risk
of suicidal ideation and attempts, and CB victims appear to be at greater risk for suicidal ideation
compared to victims of traditional bullying (Geel, Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014).
Problem Statement
The impact of cyber-victimization (CV) can range from mental health problems to
problematic behaviors. There is a concerning moderate correlation between CV and suicidal
ideation, according to a meta-analysis conducted by Kowalski and fellow researchers (2014).
Another meta-analysis conducted by Gini and Espalange (2014) noted that CV could have a
stronger association with suicidal ideation than traditional bullying victimization. Rueger and
Jenkins (2013) found that the experience of bullying victimization in early adolescence could
result in problems with anxiety, depression, and lowered self-esteem, as well as problems with
school such as poor attendance, reduced academic performance, and negative attitude.

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

5

At home, parents and guardians find themselves attempting to navigate new ground in
helping their children to use the internet safely. A board member of the Parent Teacher
Organization (PTO) of a suburban Arizona middle school expresses that CB and internet safety
are major concerns for many of the parents in her organization. The parents of the PTO want to
make sure their children are being safe online and want guidance on how to help their children.
Helping parents learn to navigate resources for handling CB and how to make use of these
resources could be a step toward addressing CB issues.
Furthermore, parents may not even be aware that their children are having trouble with
internet harassment (Baas, O’Neil, & Craig, 2013; Dehue, Bolman, & Vőllink, 2008). Children
may be hesitant to tell their parents they are experiencing CV out of shame that it is happening to
them or out of fear that their parents will restrict internet access or take it away (Baas et al.,
2013). Based on this information, it is recommended that parents develop an understanding of
how important the internet is to their children and reassure them that online privileges will not be
restricted should they reveal that they have experienced CB (Baas et al., 2013). In addition, open
discussion between parent and child about online behaviors and parental awareness of their
child’s online activities decreases CV (Ang, 2015; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2015; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, and Lattanner, 2014). Similarily, Mesch (2009) found in a
survey of 935 teenagers that parental monitoring of websites visited and discussion of websites
teenagers visited, including what content is on them, rules for conduct, and the risks of using
them, appears to be protective. In a survey of a national sample of 12-17 year olds and their
parents, Khurana, Bleakley, Jordan, and Romer (2015), also found that parental monitoring of
their child’s online activities had a direct protective effect against CV.

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

6

While it is important to decrease chances of CV it is also necessary to reduce perpetration
of CB. Hinduja and Patchin (2013), found that students who believed their parents disapprove of
CB and were likely to discipline the student for this behavior were less likely to participate in
CB. Research recommends that CB may be reduced through open conversation between parent
and child, including discussion of what is appropriate online behavior, as well as parental
monitoring of online activities (Ang, 2015; Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Kowalski, Giumetti,
Schroeder, and Lattanner, 2014).
Based on this information the following question is posed: In parents of middle school
students (P), how does parental mediation and education on cyberbullying and cyberbullying
victimization (I), compared to no education (C), affect internet awareness, reports of
cyberbullying, and parent-child open communication (O) immediately after the education and at
one month follow-up (T)?
Search Strategy
In order to address the question posed a literature search was conducted using the
following six databases: PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL Plus, Education Research
Complete (ERIC), Academic Search Premier, and PubMed. Common terms for CB were
included in most searches with the Boolean connector OR between them; these terms included
cyberbullying, cyber bullying, online bullying, electronic harassment, and electronic aggression.
The abstracts of studies provided by these searches were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion
criteria and relevancy to the PICO question. Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed,
scholarly articles, published in the last five years, in English language, and explored the effects
of parental involvement on traditional bullying and CB behaviors in children ages 10-18 years
old. Studies were excluded if they were written in languages other than English, studied CB in

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

7

adults, or if they were traditional bullying studies that were not meta-analyses or systematic
reviews.
The search strategy described produced 469 results, ten of which were retained for
evidence synthesis. These retained studies consisted of one qualitative study, one randomized
control trial, one quasi-experimental study, one meta-analysis, one meta-analysis/systematic
review, and five cross-sectional studies that address elements of the question posed.
Critical Appraisal and Synthesis of Evidence
Of the ten studies reviewed, two are level I evidence, one is level II evidence, one is level
III evidence, and the rest are level VI evidence. The majority of the studies reviewed are crosssectional in design because of the difficulty in tracking CB due to privacy measures and the
nature of internet use. In the reviewed studies, definitions of CB and CV were relatively
homogenous, although time-frames over which the CB was evaluated ranged from during the last
30 days to the last year. Within studies, reliability was reported as coefficient alphas in four
studies all of which were above .70 indicating internal consistency (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt,
2015). The samples covered an age range of 10-19 year old children and their parents, all but one
of which either focused on or included middle-school age children. Studies were included from
multiple countries resulting in heterogeneity of racial and cultural demographics.
All of the studies reviewed explored parental influence as a variable affecting bullying or
CB or the protective effects of parenting on CV. Elements of parental involvement in school
anti-bullying programs were explored in three of the studies; two of these studies reported
statistically significant decreases in both CV/bullying victimization and CB/traditional bullying
and one was not statistically significant (Cross et al., 2012; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011;
Vanderhoven, Schellens, & Valcke, 2016). Two studies explored the importance of parental

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

8

communication of expectations for online behaviors with one finding a significant decrease in
CB and the other finding a significant decrease in CV risk (Hindjua & Patchin, 2013; Navarro,
Serena, Martínez, & Ruiz-Oliva, 2013). Parental monitoring efforts were found to correlate with
decreases in CV in two studies, while one meta-analysis noted a small, negative effect size on
CV (Floros, Siomos, Fisoun, Dafouli, & Geroukalis, 2013; Khurana, Bleakley, Jordan, & Romer,
2015; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). The same meta-analysis found a
small, negative effect size for parental monitoring on CB while another study found no
statistically significant effect (Kowalski et al., 2014; Floros et al., 2013). Finally, parental
restriction of internet access or overprotection was related to increased CB and CV in one study
while four other studies found no statistically significant effects from these measures (Floros et
al., 2013; Khurana et al., 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014; Navarro et al., 2013).
Purpose Statement
In middle-school age students, parental interventions that focus on monitoring activities
on electronic mediums and facilitate open discussion between parent and child about acceptable
online behavior shows potential for reducing CV and, to a lesser extent, CB. Involving parents in
school anti-bullying efforts also shows capacity for reducing CV as well as CB. On the other
hand, evidence has shown that parental interventions that involve restricting internet access at
best have no significant effect on either CB or CV and at worst could increase incidences. Based
on these conclusions from the research, the project was developed with the purpose of increasing
parental interventions that included monitoring children’s online activities and discussing
acceptable online behavior while decreasing those practices that restrict internet access.
Theoretical Framework and Evidence-Based Practice Model

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

9

The evidence is supportive of parental mediation as an effective approach for reducing
CB and CV; however, not all forms of mediation were effective. The Theory of Parenting Styles,
represented in Figure 1 in Appendix A, provides an explanation for the discrepancy between
different parental approaches (Baumrind, 1966). According to this theory, an authoritarian
parenting style may produce a child who is passively obedient and can reduce social skills for
handling situations like CB. Parents who use internet restriction as a means of reducing risks of
deviant behavior online likely fall into this authoritarian category. This theory identifies
authoritative parenting as allowing the child to develop healthy decision-making processes and
better skills at navigating social situations. This could explain why approaches that involve open
discussion of expectations between parent and child and monitoring practices have better
outcomes for children.
The evidence-based practice (EBP) model designed by Rosswurm and Larrabee (1999)
was selected as a guide for implementation of the project (Appendix B, Figure 2). In the first step
of this EBP model the practitioner assesses the need for a change in practice, which in this case
involved speaking with stakeholders such as mental health practitioners, teachers, school
officials, and parents. In the next step, link, the current interventions geared toward CB were
determined as well as outcome measures that could be used to determine their success. The
synthesis of evidence was conducted with evaluation and appraisal of current evidence and
evidence synthesis. This information is used in the fourth step of designing the change to be
implemented; in this case, the intervention will include education about appropriate parental
mediation techniques and techniques to avoid. This intervention is then implemented and
evaluated with the education intervention being introduced to an initial group of parents and then
evaluated to determine if further changes need to be made. Finally, in the integration and

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

10

maintenance step, the intervention is carried out with other groups of parents while continuing to
evaluate its effectiveness.
Project Method
Settings
The project consisted of an education session on CB being provided to parent groups at
three middle schools in the Phoenix, Arizona area during the Fall 2016 school semester. Schools
were selected based on openness to hosting the education sessions, an expressed interest in
addressing CB, and availability of a media room due to presentation being on powerpoint and to
make viewing of internet-based demonstrations possible.
Ethics
Before the project commenced, written permission was obtained from the principals the
schools to conduct the project on school grounds with the parents of students. Then, the project
was reviewed by Arizona State University’s institutional review board and determined to be
exempt. Prior to the start of the educational sessions, each parent was provided with a cover
letter on the first page of the pre-test surveys informing parents about the project and voluntary
nature of the surveys and participation. Parents were given as much time as necessary to review
the letter and decide if they wanted to participate; proceeding with the surveys after reading the
cover letter was considered consent to participate in the project.
Participants
Participants were parents with children attending the middle schools involved in the
project. For recruitment, fliers about the education session were distributed to the parents
through email blast and by passing them out at a school event. At two schools, guidance
counselors promoted the education session and at the third school the event was promoted by the

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

11

PTO. To be included the participant had to be a parent or guardian of a child attending the
middle school, over the age 18, and English speaking.
Intervention
The project commenced, with parent education sessions being provided either in
conjunction with Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) meetings or at information sessions, with
an invitation extended to all parents with students at that school. The education sessions were
presented by a Bachelor’s prepared psychiatric/mental health registered nurse in her third year of
a Doctor in Nursing Practice program. The education sessions were provided through a 30minute powerpoint presentation with an additional 10 minutes allotted for a Q&A session. The
powerpoint covered an explanation of what CB is, how to talk openly with children about
internet use and CB, recognizing signs that bullying is occurring, and how to address it. Based on
the evidence, the aim was to promote open conversations between parents and their children
about CB and parental monitoring of online activities while deemphasizing restrictive parental
practices.
Data Collection
Data was collected through surveys distributed pre-presentation, immediately postpresentation, and at one-month follow-up. The surveys were anonymous with no personal
information attached and were coded with a survey ID to allow for tracking changes between
pre-, post-, and one-month follow-up. Pre- and post-presentation surveys were administered as
paper surveys in-person at the time of the education session while the one-month follow-up
survey was distributed through a secure, internet-based service.
Outcome Measurement

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

12

In order to determine this project’s effectiveness at increasing open communication
between parent and child, the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS) was
administered as a part of the survey (Barnes & Olson, 1985). The PACS consist of two subscales
of ten questions each, one measures open family communication and the other measures
problems in family communication, with statements from both subscales intermixed to prevent
responder bias. Respondents score the statements of the subscales using a Likert scale ranging
from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree. An analysis of reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha
found good internal consistency (α=0.87) for the open family communication subscale,
acceptable internal consistency (α=0.77) for the problems in family communication subscale, and
good internal consistency (α=0.88) with the combined scale.
In order to determine parental awareness of CB and CV incidences and parental
responses or planned responses to these incidences survey questions were selected from a parent
survey created by prominent CB researchers, Dr. Sameer Hinduja and Dr. Justin Patchin.
Questions drawn from this survey pertain to demographics, preventative measures against
CB/CV, if child has experienced CV, parental responses to CV, and what the parent intends to do
if the child experiences CV. Psychometric evaluation of this survey tool has not been performed
to date; however, there are currently no validated instruments to measure CB perceptions or
responses in parents at this time.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was completed using SPSS (version 23.0). Descriptive statistics were
conducted on demographic data to provide information on participant demographics, perception
of CB and CV, and practices to prevent and address CB and CV. Additionally, a Wilcoxon test

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

13

examined the results of the PACS pre-presentation and post-presentation. One-month follow-up
data could not be tested due to low response rate and missing data.
Project Results
Eight (N=8) parents attended the sessions, as indicated in Table 1, five (62.5%) were
mothers, one (12.5%) was a father, one (12.5%) was a step-father, and one identified only as a
parent (12.5%). The average age of the children of parents in attendance was 12.9 (SD=0.64)
years and ages ranged from 12-14 years old. Two (25%) parent’s children were in 7th grade and
six (75%) were in 8th grade. Six (75%) of parents reported that they were not aware of their child
being a CV, one (12.5%) was aware that their child was a CV, and one (12.5%) was uncertain.
Table 1
Sample demographic characteristics
Characteristic
Relationship
Mother
Father
Step-father
Grade of Child
7th
8th
Age of Child
12
13
14

n (N=8)

Percentage

5
1
1

62.5
12.5
12.5

2
6

25
75

2
5
1

25
62.5
12.5

As shown in Table 2, the average score on the PACS in the survey pre-presentation was
83.37 (SD=9), range 62 - 94, post-presentation average was 82.38 (SD=8.8), range 69 - 92, and
one-month follow-up was 92 (SD=0), range 92 – 92. A Wilcoxon test examined the results of the
pre-presentation and post-presentation PACS scores. No significant difference was found in the
results (Z = -.405, p >.05). Pre-presentation scores were not significantly different from post-

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

14

presentation scores. There was insufficient response to one-month follow-up to complete data
analysis for comparison. Finally, planned parental interventions to address cybervictimization are
displayed in Table 3.
Table 2
Change in Parent Adolescent Communication Scale scores
Survey

n

M (SD)

Range

Pre-presentation

8

83.37 (9)

62-94

Post-presentation

8

82.38 (8.8)

69-92

One-month

2

92 (0)

92-92

Table 3
Planned parental intervention to address cybervictimization
Intervention

Pre-presentation
n (%)

Post-presentation
n (%)

Monitor online activity
Limit internet access
Take internet

7 (87.5)
1 (12.5)
3 (37.5)

6 (75)
0 (0)
5 (62.5)

Discussion
The data analysis indicates that changes in PACS scores from pre-presentation to postpresentation were not significantly different, however, this is likely due to the short timeframe
between these two surveys; parents would not have been in communication with their children
between surveys. Scores were higher on the one-month follow-up surveys compared to pre- and
post-presentation, but with only two completed surveys at that time point analysis cannot be
conducted. Therefore, one-month follow-up scores cannot be compared to the pre- and post-

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

15

presentation surveys. In regards to planned parental response to addressing incidences of their
child being a CV, one less parent reported that they would take away internet access in response
to CV. However, one less parent reported that they would monitor their child’s online activity
and one more said they would limit their child’s internet access in response to CV. While the
former change is what was promoted during the session based on the evidence, the latter two
changes were not expected based on what was taught during the education session.
When considering this project’s outcomes it is important to note a few issues that arose
during its implementation that may limit the findings. Low attendance and lack of participation
in one-month follow-up surveys were problems encountered at all three middle school education
sessions. While attendance was promoted with fliers distributed to parents with children
attending the middle schools, the presentation was promoted in different ways at each school. At
the school two school where the event was held as a standalone parent education night with
promotion through fliers, attendance was the lowest. However, when the parent education
session was provided in conjunction with a PTO meeting attendance improved somewhat.
Additionally, participation in one-month follow-up surveys was low; only three parents
completed this survey. This was potentially due to lack of incentive to participate, length of time
between presentation and follow-up, and follow-up via online survey format. Finally, two
parents each missed entering an answer to a PACS statement on a pre-presentation and onemonth follow-up survey, which had detrimental effect on the data analysis and results. Despite
project limitations, positive impacts for parents involved were observed during the
implementation. Parents were able to discuss experiences and methods of addressing bullying
with each other. Parents were also able to voice concerns with school representatives (guidance
counselors, principals) in attendance of the session and learn about school approaches to

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

16

handling bullying situations. Parents expressed to the presenter that the education session was
helpful and informative.
Conclusion
Cyberbullying can cause significant mental health, emotional, and behavioral problems
for victims if it is not prevented or addressed early. Parental intervention is an important aspect
of addressing CB early; however, its effectiveness is dependent on parental awareness and
response to CB and CV. Unfortunately, due to low attendance to the education sessions and
limited response to follow-up surveys, conclusions cannot be made about this particular projects
effectiveness at addressing CB. These issues could be addressed in future projects by making
changes to the approach to promoting education sessions to improve attendance and by
improving response to follow-up surveys, perhaps by providing incentives or distribution of
surveys in a different manner. Further adaptations of projects to improve open communication
between parent and child about online activities by mental health nurses may provide results that
are more concrete.

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

17
References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2014). Mental health: Research findings.
Retrieved from
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/mental/mentalhth/mentalhth2.html#dep
ression
Ang, R. (2015). Adolescent cyberbullying: A review of characteristics, prevention, and
intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 35-42. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.011
Baas, N., Jong, M.D.T., & Drossaert, C.H.C. (2013). Children’s perspectives on cyberbullying:
Insights based on participatory research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 18(4), 248-253. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0079
Barnes, H.L. & Olson, D.H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex
model. Child Developmen, 56(2), 438-447. doi: 10.2307/1129732
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Youth risk behavior surveillance: United
States 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(4). Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6304.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Technology and youth: Protecting your child
from electronic aggression. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/electronicaggression/.

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

18

Cioppa, V.D, O’Neil, A., & Craig, W. (2015). Learning from traditional bullying intervention: A
review of research on cyberbullying and best practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
23, 61-68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.009
Cross, D., Waters, S., Pearce, N., Shaw, T., Hall, M, Erceg, E., Burns, S, Roberts, C., &
Hamilton, G. (2012). The friendly schools friendly families programme: Three-year
bullying behaviour outcomes in primary school children. International Journal of
Educational Research, 53(2012), 394-406. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.05.004
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., &Vőllink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and
parental perceptions. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217-223. doi:
10.1089/cpb.2007.0008
Floros, G.D., Siomos, K.E., Fisoun, V., Dafouli, E., & Geroukalis, D. (2013). Adolescent online
cyberbullying in Greece: The impact of parental online security practices, bonding, and
online impulsiveness. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 445-453.
Gámez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P.K. & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudinal and reciprocal
relationships of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic internet
use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 446-452. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.030
Geel, M.V., Vedder, P., & Tanilon J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization,
cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatric, 168(5), 435-442.
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

19

Gini, G. & Espalange, D.L. (2014). Peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide risk in
children and adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics,
168(5), 435-442. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J.W. (2011). Cyberbullying: A review of legal issues facing educators.
Preventing School Failure, 55(2), 71-78. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.539433
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle
and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013(42), 711-722. doi:
10.1007/s10964-012-9902-4
Khurana, A., Bleakley, A., Jordan, A.B., & Romer, D. (2015). The protective effects of parental
monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents’ risk of online harassment. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 2015(44), 1039-1047. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4
Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, E.R. (2014). Bullying in the
digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
Psychological Bulleting, 140(4), 1073-1137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618
Melnyk, B.M. & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare:
A guide to best practice (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health.
Mesch, G.S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology
and Behavior, 12(4), 388-393. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0068
Navarro, R., Serena, C., Martínez, V., & Ruiz-Oliva, R. (2013). The role of internet use and
parental mediation on cyberbullying victimization among Spanish children from rural

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

20

public schools. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 28, 725-745. doi:
10.1007/s10212-012-0137-2
Pew Research Center (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015: Smartphones
facilitate shifts in communication landscape for teens. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015.
Rosswurm, M.A. & Larrabee, J.H. (1999). A model for change to evidence-based practice.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 317-322.
Rueger, S.Y. & Jenkins, L.N. (2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and
academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 77-88.
doi: 10.1037/spq0000036
Sahin, M. (2012). The relationship between the cyberbullying/cybervictimization and loneliness
among adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 834-837.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.010
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, 27-56. doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2015). What is cyberbullying? Retrieved from
http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/index.html.
Vanderhoven, E., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2016). Decreasing risky behavior on social
network sites: The impact of parental involvement in secondary education interventions.
Journal of Primary Prevention. doi: 10.1007/s10935-016-0420-0

Running head: CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

21
Appendix A

Figure 1. Baumrind’s Parenting Styles Theory

Figure 1. Visual depiction of parenting traits displayed by authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles and the traits of children
raised by parents who practice each of these parenting styles. Adapted from “Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child
Behavior,” by D. Baumrind, 1966, Child Development, 37, p. 887.

Running head: CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION
Appendix B
Figure 2. Rosswurm and Larrabee’s Evidence-Based Practice Model
1. Assess




….the need for a practice change
Discuss with stakeholders
Gather internal data & compare to external data
Identify the problem





…problem w/ intervention & outcomes
Using a standard system for classifying
Determine possible interventions
Identify outcome indicators






… best available evidence
Search literature studying major variables
Critically review and weigh evidence
Synthesize best evidence
Determine feasibility, benefits, & risks






…change to practice
Define change
Identify resources
Plan process for implementing change
Define outcome indicators

2. Link

3. Synthesize

4. Design

5. Implement & Evaluate




…change to practice
Pilot study
Evaluate process and outcomes
Decide to makes changes to, keep or reject
practice change

6. Integrate & Maintain





…change to practice
Communicate change recommendation to
stakeholders
Educate staff on practice change
Integrate into standard practices
Monitor ongoing process and outcomes

22

CYBERBULLYING PRESENTATION

23

Figure 2. Rosswurm and Larabee’s Evidence-Based Practice Model for implementing evidencebased change in practice. Adapted from “A Model for Change to Evidence-Based Practice,” by
M.A. Rosswurm and J.H. Larabee, 1999, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, p. 317. Copyright
1999 by Blackwell Publishing.