Content uploaded by Marc S Karver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc S Karver on Sep 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Psychological Distress and Student Engagement as Mediators
of the Relationship between Peer Victimization and Achievement
in Middle School Youth
Christine M. Wienke Totura •Marc S. Karver •
Ellis L. Gesten
Received: 20 September 2012 / Accepted: 23 January 2013 / Published online: 2 February 2013
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Peer victimization is a well-known national and
international problem, contributing to a range of emotional,
social, and behavioral consequences. Using structural equa-
tion modeling, the authors tested a theoretical model sug-
gesting that psychological distress and student engagement
mediate the association between the experience of victim-
ization and concurrent academic achievement. Participants
were 469 (46.4 % male, 53.6 % female) 6th to 8th grade
students, from randomly selected classrooms in 11 middle
schools in a southeastern school district. Structural equation
models of the hypothesized effects demonstrated adequate
fit to the data, with both symptoms of psychological distress
and engagement mediating the relationship between vic-
timization and academic achievement. In general, the results
suggest that victimization predicts diminished academic
achievement by way of psychological distress and poorer
engagement in classroom and academic tasks. However, the
direct relationship between victimization and measures of
achievement lacked significance across many correlational
and path analyses conducted. These findings have implica-
tions for researchers and practitioners in understanding how
psychological distress and student engagement are associ-
ated with the academic performance of students who expe-
rience peer victimization.
Keywords Bullying Peer victimization
Peer aggression Academic achievement
Student engagement Psychological adjustment
Introduction
Peer victimization, conceptualized as the receipt of repe-
ated bullying behavior such as physical, verbal, or rela-
tional aggression or threats of aggression in situations
where it is difficult for the bullied student to defend him/
herself (Olweus 1996), is a well-documented national and
international problem, with estimates of victimization vary-
ing from study to study and place to place. Within the United
States, researchers estimate that roughly 30 % of middle
school and high school students were victims of bullying
(Robers et al. 2012), with a considerable percentage of 6th–
10th grade students (17 %) experiencing regular victimiza-
tion (Nansel et al. 2001). Other studies find higher estimates
depending on the geographic location and mode of victim-
ization evaluated. For example, over 80 % of rural youth
reported experiencing some form of victimization (Dulums
et al. 2004) and a dramatic increase in online victimization
has been observed in the last decade (David-Ferdon and
Hertz 2007). Despite variability in estimates, it appears that
victimization is more far reaching, severe, and impactful than
many people think (Benbenishty and Astor 2005). Given the
extensiveness of victimization, it is especially concerning
C. M. W. Totura
School of Social Work, Southwest Interdisciplinary Research
Center, Arizona State University, 411 North Central Avenue,
Suite 720, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Present Address:
C. M. W. Totura (&)
College of Education, Northern Arizona University, 15601 North
28th Avenue, Suite 136, Phoenix, AZ 85053, USA
e-mail: christine.totura@nau.edu; christine.totura@asu.edu
M. S. Karver E. L. Gesten
Department of Psychology, University of South Florida,
4202 East Fowler Avenue, PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33624, USA
e-mail: mkarver@usf.edu
E. L. Gesten
e-mail: gesten@usf.edu
123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
DOI 10.1007/s10964-013-9918-4
that there are considerable negative consequences that follow
victimization (Carlisle and Rofes 2007;Olweus1993).
The consequences of peer victimization are numerous
and well-founded. Victimized adolescents can grow up
with progressively worsening anxiety, depression, and
anger along with fear and apprehension in social interac-
tions. These youth can feel anxious and fearful about
attending school and often try to avoid going, which has a
negative impact on future educational achievement and
subsequent job attainment (Macmillian and Hagan 2004).
Of particular interest to schools, where a large proportion
of peer victimization takes place, is the connection between
victimization and academic performance. The research
literature is unclear as to whether peer victimization has an
independent direct relationship or some other relation-
ship with academic outcomes for middle school students
(Graham et al. 2006; Juvonen et al. 2000; Nakamoto and
Schwartz 2010). While some studies have found a direct
link between victimization and achievement (e.g., Sch-
wartz et al. 2005), others found a relationship between
victimization and academic constructs that include a com-
bination of achievement and student engagement variables
(e.g., grade point average and teacher ratings of student
engagement; Graham et al. 2006). Understanding the
mechanisms by which victimized students experience aca-
demic failure is critical if schools are to intervene
effectively.
Although researchers have looked at the school-related
consequences of victimization from early childhood though
adolescence (Buhs et al. 2006; Haynie et al. 2001; Juvonen
et al. 2000; Juvonen et al. 2011; Lopez and DuBois 2005;
Schwartz et al. 2005), studies suggest that school experi-
ences may be especially important during the early ado-
lescent years as acute social pressures and concomitant
developmental changes in youth make the middle school
grades a distinctly vulnerable time, emotionally, socially
and academically (Eccles et al. 1998; Kasen et al. 2004).
Psychological distress, characterized by symptoms of depres-
sion, anxiety, and anger (Kessler et al. 2002), appears to be
more common for peer victimized adolescents than for
nonvictimized youths (Totura et al. 2009a,b). Researchers
further suggest that the psychological distress victimized
students experience impairs their ability to be successful in
school (Gumora and Arsenio 2002). When students expe-
rience situations that contribute to psychological distress,
such as peer victimization, it is often hard for them to be
focused and engaged in school (Roeser et al. 2002), which
contributes to poorer academic achievement (Flook et al.
2005; Roeser et al. 2001). The negative associations among
victimization, psychological distress, student engagement,
and academic achievement are compelling and point to
a need to understand better the phenomenon of peer
victimization at school.
Prior research has uncovered several relationships among
victimization from bullying, symptoms of psychological dis-
tress, and academic outcomes. However, with remaining gaps
in knowledge and inconsistencies across studies as to how
these variables relate to each other, the explicit mechanisms
explaining the connection between victimization and aca-
demic achievement are still uncertain. This study draws upon
General Strain (GST) and role strain theories to provide a
framework for conceptualizing the psychological and school-
related consequences of victimization from bullying. GST
suggests that students who experience a particular strain, such
as victimization, tend to experience emotionality as a result
(see Lin et al. 2011 for a review). Victimization and rejection
strain from the peer group and consequent psychological
difficulties thus contribute to declinesin engagement in school
and achievement (deBruyn 2005). Through the synthesis of
numerous disparate findings in the literature, this study builds
upon strain theories to test a model among middle school
students of the underlying pathways linking victimization
with the consequences of psychological distress, poorer stu-
dent engagement, and academic achievement. Greater detail
on these pathways is provided in the following sections.
Psychological Consequences of Peer Victimization
Consistent with strain theories, many factors contribute to
psychological distress in youth, as measured by symptoms of
depression, anxiety, and anger (e.g., Cuevas et al. 2010;
Kessler et al. 2002;Shanahanetal.2008). The finding that the
experience of victimization is related to psychological distress
may be explained by the possibility that many youths who are
victimized may then make negative self-attributions that
could contribute to a sense of negative self-worth and feelings
of depression and loneliness (Lopez and DuBois 2005;Gra-
ham and Juvonen 1998). When examining the relationship
between peer victimization and symptoms of psychological
distress, it has been documented that students’ experiences
with peer victimization or exposure to violence reliably have
been associated with anxiety, depression, withdrawal and
loneliness, and lower self-esteem (Craig 1998; Crick and
Grotpeter 1996; Hawker and Boulton 2000; Juvonen et al.
2000). Additionally, strong predictors of reported anger
include exposure to and experience of violent victimization,
such as threats, hitting, or beatings (Singer et al. 1995). These
psychological consequences subsequently have an effect on
how engaged youth are in school and with their academics
(e.g., Masten et al. 2005).
Student Engagement Consequences of Victimization
and Psychological Distress
Studies have demonstrated relationships between victimiza-
tion and decreased emotional and school-based functioning.
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52 41
123
McLeod and Fettes (2007) found that youths who experi-
enced distress in childhood or adolescence had poorer
student engagement compared to their psychologically
adjusted peers. Victimized students who experience
symptoms of psychological distress, such as depression and
anxiety, have been found to have problems with multiple
aspects of engagement in school (e.g., Frojd et al. 2008;
Wentzel 1998) such that their psychological and emotional
problems leave them less interested in and able to con-
centrate in classroom tasks (Gumora and Arsenio 2002). In
terms of the dimensions of engagement, youth who are
bullied by their peers are less involved and interested in
school work and activities, whereas those who do not
experience bullying tend to have better engagement in
school (e.g., Buhs et al. 2006; Wentzel 1998). Victimized
youth bond and adjust more poorly to school compared
with those who are not involved in bullying or victimiza-
tion (Haynie et al. 2001) and have a greater incidence of
truancy or avoiding school activities in order to avoid sit-
uations that give rise to victimization (Buhs et al. 2006).
Consequently, school avoidance generally has a negative
impact on engagement in school (Juvonen et al. 2000;
Wentzel 1998). It appears quite possible given the accu-
mulating evidence that peer victimization has an impact on
youth psychologically and academically. What is not
entirely evident is the mechanism by which these experi-
ences are related to each other, as this study proposes to
clarify.
Student Engagement as a Precursor to Achievement
Among the factors most associated with achievement is
student engagement (e.g., Buhs et al. 2006; Carter et al.
2012; Sideridis 2005; Wentzel 1993). Although an area of
ongoing debate in the research literature, there is general
agreement that student engagement is conceptualized as a
multidimensional construct of the academic behavioral
(participation on class work and concentration devoted to
learning), cognitive (investment in learning and desire to
achieve mastery), and emotional (interest in education and
sense of school belongingness) factors that underlie student
connectedness to school and academics (Appleton et al.
2008; Betts et al. 2010; Carter et al. 2012; Fredericks et al.
2004; Jimerson et al. 2003). Further, models of academic
achievement suggest that components of student engage-
ment, such as goals to perform well and master academic
challenges (Wentzel 1993), involvement in classroom tasks
(Buhs et al. 2006), and demonstrating ability to concentrate
on academic activities (Fredericks et al. 2004), are related
strongly and consistently to school performance (Appleton
et al. 2008). Thus, the student engagement construct in
the present study is measured in line with this multidi-
mensional theory supported by Appleton et al. (2008),
Fredericks et al. (2004), and Jimerson et al. (2003) using
indicators of the three engagement dimensions (behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional). Specifically, school self-effi-
cacy, goal orientation toward school and academics, and
the ability to stay on task and attend to classroom activities
are variables included in the current study that align with
each of the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive compo-
nents of engagement. School self-efficacy, defined as per-
ceptions about one’s capacity to contribute in school and to
achieve mastery, is particularly in line with cognitive
aspects of student engagement (Jimerson et al. 2003;
Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2003). Students who are motivated
to learn and develop skills, who want to be academically
competent, and who are actively involved in learning and
classroom activities are the most likely to be successful in
school over time (Wentzel 1993), therefore providing a
strong link between engagement and achievement.
Mediated Mechanisms Associating Victimization
with Achievement
Given evidence presented in this and prior sections, it is
believed that poor academic and school outcomes are due
significantly to symptoms of psychological distress and stu-
dent engagement deficits that follow experiences with vic-
timization. In support of this view, several researchers have
found achievement outcomes related to victimization through
the mediating effects of psychological symptoms (e.g.,
Graham et al. 2006; Schwartz et al. 2005). It also has been
suggested that the psychological distress that follows vic-
timization may present barriers to student engagement pro-
cesses that altogether can have a detrimental impact on grades
and test scores (Buhs et al. 2006;Grahametal.2006). In fact,
research has supported engagement as an important mediator
between context and academic outcomes (Appleton et al.
2008). Many studies either assess achievement outcome
variables or components of engagement; however, if they do
include both outcomes and engagement processes, they often
are not separately examined in such a model (e.g., Graham
et al. 2006; Nishina et al. 2005; Schwartz and Gorman 2003).
Despite intriguing findings suggesting a mechanism, no study
to date has examined multiple, salient psychological and
student engagement characteristics of victimized middle
school students together to assess their successive mediated
relationship with academic achievement.
Purpose of This Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the associations
among peer victimization, psychological distress, student
engagement, and academic achievement outcomes in a
diverse sample of middle school children. It was hypothesized
42 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
123
that psychological distress mediates the relationship between
victimization and student engagement processes, such that
these processes are influenced negatively by victimization and
poor psychological symptoms. In turn, it was expected that
student engagement factors also would serve as mediators
such that victimization is predictive of lower academic
achievement, as defined by standardized test scores and
grades, by way of psychological distress and poorer engage-
ment (i.e., victimization ?psychological distress ?
impaired student engagement ?lower academic achieve-
ment). Guided by existing evidence and strain theories, the
conceptual model shown in Fig. 1suggests that peer victim-
ization predicts psychological distress and that distressin turn
contributes to adverse consequences for student achievement.
Furthermore, it is hypothesized that students’ level of
engagement is a sequential mechanism by which psycholog-
ical distress affects academic achievement. Taken together,
the two mediators of psychological distress and student
engagement are expected to shed light on the relationship
between victimization and academic achievement.
Method
Participants
Participants were 469 students (53.6 % girls) in 6th, 7th, and
8th grades (M=12.9 years, SD =1.03) recruited from all
eleven public middle schools within a large school district in
the Southeast. Due to the availability of resources for the
overall assessment, it was decided by district officials to
survey approximately 25 % of 6th, 7th, and 8th grade regular
education students (out of roughly 15,942 total students in
the 11 district middle schools) in randomly selected class-
rooms in order to obtain a sample that was representative of
the district middle school regular education student popu-
lation. Only those 469 students who provided data on the
victimization measures in the assessment were included in
the present study. Approximately, three-fourths of the
schools were in rural and suburban areas and an average of 43
students per school and a total of 17 teachers were included in
the current study. The sample was 74.3 % Caucasian, 11.2 %
Latino/Hispanic, 3.6 % African-American, 2.5 % Asian/
Indian, and 8.5 % other which is consistent with the racial
and ethnic composition of the district (85 % Caucasian, 8 %
Latino/Latina/Hispanic, 4 % African American, and 3 %
Asian/Pacific Islander/Other). Free and reduced lunch status
across schools ranged from 23 to 66 %.
Procedure
Consent procedures were determined by the school admin-
istration consistent with district policy. District waiver of
consent was carried out in which parents and guardians of
students received an informational notice that their child was
scheduled to participate in a district initiated assessment.
Legal guardians were informed of the study and were asked
to contact the district if they did not want their child to
participate. Students also were offered the opportunity to
decline participation at any point during the study and were
assured by district staff of the anonymity of their survey
responses. This waiver process was conducted with full
approval of the District Research Compliance Board and the
University Institutional Review Board. Recruited students
and their teachers were asked to complete surveys, which
were administered in group format in the spring by school
and research personnel who were funded by the school
district to conduct this study. The assessment protocol was
standardized across classrooms and students and teachers
were provided with the Olweus (1996) definition of bullying
behavior to guide responses. Student and teacher surveys
were coded by school personnel to maintain child confi-
dentiality and de-identified data was then provided to Uni-
versity research personnel by district representatives for
analysis. Final student grades were obtained from District
personnel in the Department of Student Services at the end
of the academic year when available. Both the surveys and
the FCAT tests were administered in the Spring semester of
the same academic year from which grades were obtained.
Measures
Victimization
For the purpose of the present study, victimization was
defined using a common standard in the field based on
Peer
Victimization
Psychological
Distress
Student
Engagement
Achievement
+
-
+
-
Fig. 1 Proposed mechanism of
the relationship between peer
victimization and academic
achievement
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52 43
123
Olweus (1996) criteria as receipt of the following behav-
iors: kicking/pushing/hitting, name calling, teasing,
socially isolating others, and spreading false rumors. The
following scales were used to measure victimization.
The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus
1996) is a 39-item student-report scale covering aspects of
bullying problems. Participants responded to 9 items about
victimization (i.e., ‘‘I was called mean names,’’ Cronbach’s
alpha =.72) on a 5-point scale: 1 =I haven’t been bullied
at school in the past couple of months to 5 =I have been
bullied several times a week. Questionnaire responses have
been found to correlate significantly (r=.60–.70 range)
with peer nominations of victimization (Olweus 1991).
The Middle School/High School (MSHS) Student Survey
(Safe Community-Safe School Project 2002) is a 131-item
student-report questionnaire that measures a range of school
climate factors. Specifically, eight items from the ques-
tionnaire measured being a victim of physical aggression or
of relational aggression at school consistently with the
Olweus definition of bullying (‘‘Another student pushed,
shoved, slapped, or kicked me;’’ Cronbach’s alpha =.82).
Each item is rated on a 4-point scale (0 =no to 3 =more
than 6 times during the school year) and show convergent
validity with items from established scales, such as the
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention 2002).
Psychological Distress
Researchers successfully have used global, multi-faceted
constructs of psychological distress comprised of indicators
of depression, anxiety, anger, and general moodiness in a
variety of capacities to discriminate between clinical and
non-clinical populations (Kessler et al. 2002), predict types
and severity of victimization (Cuevas et al. 2010), and
examine the association between distress and achievement
among victimized students (Juvonen et al. 2011). Building
from the rationale of such scale development and valida-
tion work, the current study utilized a similar global
approach to measuring psychological distress with the
following scales.
The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression
Scale (CES-D; Radloff 1977) is a 20-item scale (‘‘I felt
depressed;’’ Cronbach’s alpha =.87) used to measure self-
reported depressive symptomatology on a 4-point scale,
0=never to 3 =most of the time. The CES-D scale has
been shown to correlate with self-reports from the Chil-
dren’s Depression Inventory (Weissman et al. 1980).
The State/Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC;
Spielberger 1973) is a 40-item questionnaire that assesses
self-reported anxiety as an indicator of psychological dis-
tress, on a 3-point scale, 1 =hardly ever to 3 =often. The
20-item Trait Anxiety subscale (e.g., ‘‘I worry too much;’’
Cronbach’s alpha =.91) was used and has been found to
correlate highly with other standard measures of anxiety
(Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale; Castaneda et al. 1956).
The State/Trait Anger Expression Inventory for Chil-
dren and Adolescents (STAXI-C/A; Brunner and Spielber-
ger 2009) is a 53-item student-report survey that assesses
anger. The Trait Anger scale (‘‘I feel angry;’’ Cronbach’s
alpha =.83) includes 12 items rated on a 3-point scale
(1 =hardly ever to 3 =often), which has been shown to
relate significantly to self-reports of daily anger prevalence
(Deffenbacher 1992).
The AML Behavior Rating Scale-Revised (AML-R)isa
12-item teacher-report survey (Cowen et al. 1973) used to
assess student maladjustment. Three scales comprise the
AML-R: Acting-Out, Moodiness, and Learning. The 4-item
Moodiness scale was used as an indicator of psychological
distress (‘‘Is unhappy,’’ ‘‘Is moody;’’ Cronbach’s alpha =
.83). Scores on the AML-R have distinguished between
children who were referred for mental health services and
those who were not (Cowen et al. 1973).
Student Engagement
Student engagement often is conceptualized as a multidi-
mensional construct of the behavioral, cognitive, and
emotional components that underlie student connectedness
to school and contribute to academic success (Appleton
et al. 2008; Betts et al. 2010; Carter et al. 2012; Fredericks
et al. 2004; Jimerson et al. 2003). The fact that indicators of
these engagement components overlap or are highly cor-
related suggests the need to examine their collective pre-
dictability (Betts et al. 2010). In line with this theory,
indicators of each of these components (school self-effi-
cacy, academic goal orientation, and learning and class
focal abilities) were measured using the following scales.
The School Adjustment Survey (SAS; Santa Lucia and
Gesten 2000) is a 34-item self-report survey assessing
bonding with school, classmates, and teachers. The 5-item
Goal-Orientation scale of the survey is rated on a 5-point
scale (1 =strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree;
Cronbach’s alpha =.74) and consists of items to assess
student engagement in mastering school tasks (‘‘Education
is important for success in life’’ and ‘‘I try as hard as I can
to do my best at school’’). The SAS has been shown to
adequately discriminate among students engaged in school
and those at-risk for academic failure (Santa Lucia and
Gesten 2000).
The Middle School/High School (MSHS)Student Survey
(Safe Community-Safe School Project 2002), previously
discussed in the Victimization section, includes 4 items
measuring school self-efficacy (e.g., ‘‘If I study hard, I will
get good grades’’) as indicators of student engagement.
44 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
123
Items are rated on a 4-point scale (0 =no,to3=more
than 6 times; Cronbach’s alpha =.65).
The AML Behavior Rating Scale-Revised (AML-R),
previously discussed in the Psychological Distress section,
included the 4-item teacher-report Learning scale (‘‘Gets
off task’’) that measures difficulties with behavioral class-
room engagement rated on a 5-point scale (1 =Never to
5=Most or All of the Time; Cronbach’s alpha =.92).
Scores on the AML-R have been adequately correlated
with academic achievement measures (Dorr et al. 1980).
Academic Achievement
Academic achievement is measured by typical indicators of
student progress, including course grades and standardized
test scores (e.g., Schwartz and Gorman 2003).
The standardized Florida Comprehensive Achievement
Tests (FCAT) is a statewide, group administered measure
of academic achievement in reading, writing, and mathe-
matics (Cronbach alphas range from .86 to .91 for grades 4
through 10). The Developmental Scale Scores for Reading
Comprehension and Math Problem-Solving tests were
used as an assessment of academic achievement. Scoring
directors and Florida Department of Education represen-
tatives evaluated FCAT scores and determined that they
fell within expected ranges per student (Florida Depart-
ment of Education 2002).
Student Grades were obtained as a measure of academic
achievement and were defined on a 5-point scale: A =4,
B=3, C =2, D =1 and F =0. Grades were aggregated
for each student to create grade point averages, which
significantly correlated with student standardized test scores
[r(452) =.43 with both FCAT Reading scores and FCAT
Math scores].
Analytic Strategy
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used (LISREL 8.7,
Joreskog and Sorbom 2004) to test the validity of the vari-
able loadings on latent constructs and the hypothesized
victimization ?psychological distress ?lowered student
engagement ?lowered academic achievement mediated
model. The SEM models utilized partial aggregation—an
approach in which the underlying dimensions of a construct
are retained during measurement. A composite variable (i.e.,
Olweus and Middle School/High School victimization
scales) is created from the items of each separate dimension,
and those variables combine to create the latent construct
(i.e., victimization). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
measurement portion of the SEM model determines the
appropriateness of fit for each indicator of a construct and
failing to reject a resulting model suggests that each of the
indicators converges on their respective composite construct
(Bagozzi and Heatherington 1994). The fit of the hypothe-
sized mediated structural model was examined using a Full
Information Maximum Likelihood fit function Chi square
index (for cases of missing data), a ratio of Chi square
estimates to the model degrees of freedom (v
2
/df), and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Con-
ventional literature suggests that a non-significant Chi
square statistic, a Chi square/df ratio less than 5 (Kline 2005;
Wheaton et al. 1977), and an RMSEA value of .05 or less are
indicative of a model that adequately fits the data (Raykov
and Marcoulides 2000).
SEM models also were assessed specifically against
standards for determining mediation, which specifies the
pathway mechanism by which two variables or constructs
are associated with each other (Baron and Kenny 1986).
Conducting Sobel tests (product of nonstandardized path
coefficients), in which the significance of the mediated
pathways are tested against a standard z-distribution (Preacher
and Hayes 2008), contributed to the assessment of mediated
effects.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses
Means for each observed variable and latent construct are
presented in Table 1. Means for observed variables are
unstandardized and means for the constructs are compos-
ites of observed variable standardized z-scores. Mean
scores on the victimization scales from both the Olweus
and MSHS questionnaires indicated that victimization
occurred on average a couple of times in the last few
months.
Correlations between constructs and indicators are pre-
sented in Tables 2and 3. Victimization was not related
significantly to both achievement and student engagement
variables [r(467) =-.07 and -.06, respectively]. How-
ever as hypothesized, victimization variables were signifi-
cantly correlated with psychological distress variables
[r(466) =.41], which were correlated significantly with
student engagement measures [r(466) =-.27], which were
then significantly associated with achievement variables
[r(466) =.28].
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
The proposed full model victimization ?psychological
distress ?student engagement ?academic achievement
(with the direct victimization to academic achievement
path) adequately fit the data [v
2
=72.04 (34), p\.05, Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) =.049,
p=.52, v
2
/df =2.12]. The reduced model without the
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52 45
123
direct victimization ?academic achievement path was
also of adequate fit [v
2
=73.72 (35), p\.05, RMSEA =
.049, p=.54, v
2
/df =2.11]. The addition of the direct
pathway did not significantly improve model fit
(Dv
2
=1.68, p=.19), therefore, it appears that psycho-
logical distress and student engagement are reasonable
mediating factors for the relationship between victimization
and academic achievement (see Fig. 2).
Upon examination of parameter estimates in the full
model (see Fig. 2), the level of victimization was signifi-
cantly related to psychological distress; maximum likeli-
hood estimate (mle)=14.47, R
2
=.32, t(468) =5.81,
p\.05, ESr=.57. The pathway between psychological
distress and student engagement was also significant in
the proposed direction; mle =-.009, R
2
=.08, t(468) =
-2.85, p\.05; ESr=.28, with the Sobel test for media-
tion significant as well; z=2.56, p=.01. Additionally,
the path between student engagement and academic
achievement was significant; mle =195.99, R
2
=.05,
t(468) =3.26, p\.05; ESr=.22; Sobel test for this
mediated effect z=2.15, p=.03. Conversely, the pathway
between victimization and academic achievement was non-
significant in the full mediated model; mle =-87.47,
R
2
=.01, t(468) =-1.76, p[.05; ESr=.10. These
pathway estimates in the full mediated model demonstrated
a decrease in the significance of the relationship between
victimization and achievement when mediators were taken
into account, compared with the pathway initially tested in a
model that did not include the mediators (victimization ?
achievement); mle =-132.07, R
2
=.004, t(468) =-2.10,
p\.05. Despite the nonsignificance of the simple correlation
relationship (rfor victimization-achievement =-.07, ns),
both the Sobel test evidence and the significance of the path
coefficients (and subsequent decrease in relationship signifi-
cance in the full mediated model) suggest that psychological
distress and engagement are likely acting as mediators in the
present model (Baron and Kenny 1986).
Given the discrepancy in significance between the
simple correlations and path estimates for victimization
and engagement and achievement, a potential indirect
effect was examined through the reduced model that does
not account for the direct pathway between victimization
and academic achievement. In this model, the association
between victimization and psychological distress was sig-
nificant; mle =14.24, R
2
=.32, t(468) =5.75, p\.05.
As in the full model, the pathways between psychological
distress and student engagement [mle =-.009, R
2
=.08,
t(468) =-2.95, p\.05] and between engagement and
academic achievement [mle =204.68, R
2
=.04, t(468) =
3.47, p\.05] were significant, with psychological distress
indicated as a potentially adequate mediator variable
(Sobel z=2.63, p=.01). The Sobel test for the mediated
relationship for engagement was also significant (Sobel
z=2.97, p=.003), suggesting that student engagement
serves as a mediator to the psychological distress ?
achievement relationship. Given the results of the tested
models, it appears quite possible that student engagement is
the most direct predictor of academic achievement, with
victimization serving as a predictor indirectly through psy-
chological distress.
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for constructs (z-scores) and
observed variables
Construct/variable Mean SD
Victimization .001 .84
Olweus scale 1.32 .45
MSHS scale .40 .54
Psychological distress .01 .79
Depression 13.74 10.01
Anxiety 31.98 9.13
Anger 21.18 5.51
Moodiness 7.88 3.51
Student engagement .01 .81
School self-efficacy 2.88 .53
Goal orientation 4.02 .75
Learning difficulties (reversed) 3.79 1.00
Academic achievement -.01 .83
GPA 2.73 1.01
FCAT reading 1,768.49 271.06
FCAT math 1,800.45 191.86
MSHS middle school/high school survey, GPA grade point average,
FCAT Florida comprehensive achievement tests
Table 2 Correlations between
mediator constructs (zscores)
** significant at p\.01
Construct Victimization Psychological
distress
Student
Engagement
Academic
achievement
Victimization .41** -.06 -.07
Psychological
distress
-.27** -.12**
Student
Engagement
.28**
46 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
123
Discussion
Peer victimization is an extensive and severe problem with
wide-ranging and long lasting negative consequences. In
particular, past studies have suggested that victimization
may be related to the crucial youth outcome of poor aca-
demic achievement (e.g., Buhs et al. 2006; Nishina et al.
2005; Schwartz et al. 2005). However, the mechanisms by
which the experience of victimization at school is related to
academic achievement outcomes have not been clear.
Building upon General Strain Theory and prior research,
the present study examined a model that included psy-
chological distress and student engagement as important
factors relative to peer victimization and academic per-
formance. This model of psychological distress and student
engagement mediating the relationship between victim-
ization in middle school and academic achievement was
found to be a good fit for the data. An alternative model,
which included a direct relationship between victimization
and achievement, was found also to fit the data, but the
Table 3 Correlations between observed victimization, psychological distress, and academic indicators
Scale 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Olweus victimization scale – .39** .04 .25** .36** .25** .03 .001 .04 .002 -.03 .03
2. MSHS victimization scale – .22* .26** .27** .29** -.11* -.13 -.12* -.14** -.07 -.06
3. Moodiness – .16 .18* .27** -.27** -.75** -.23** -.54** -.15 -.11
4. Depression – .61** .41** -.25** -.17 -.24** -.22** -.10* -.11*
5. Anxiety – .42** -.02 -.10 -.12* -.07 .01 -.02
6. Anger – -.16** -.27** -.15** -.16** -.03 -.02
7. Goal orientation – .32** .43** .37** .19** .14**
8. Learning (reversed) – .23** .60** .43** .34**
9. School Self-Efficacy – .21** .01 -.02
10. GPA – .43** .43**
11. FCAT Reading – .66**
12. FCAT Math –
MSHS middle school/high school student survey, AML-Racting-out, moodiness, and learning scale revised, GPA grade point average, FCAT
Florida comprehensive achievement tests
* Significant at p\.05, ** significant at p\.01
Olweus
Scale
Middle
School/High
School
Scale
Victimization Psychological
Distress
Student
Engagement
Academic
Achievement
Depression Anxiety MoodinessAnger
Goal
Orientation
School
Self-
Efficacy
Learning
GPA
FCAT
Reading
FCAT
Math
.66
.59
.77
.57*
.52
-.10†
.78 .15
-.28*
.92
.45
.19
.22*
.61
.92
.71
Fig. 2 The relationship between peer victimization and achievement
as mediated by psychological distress and student engagement. The
full model includes the dashed pathway, v
2
=72.04, p\.05,
RMSEA =.049; v
2
/df =2.12. The model absent the dashed pathway
is the mediated model, v
2
=73.72, p\.05; RMSEA =.049; v
2
/
df =2.11. Structural regression coefficients (HR
2
) are reported for
full model variable loadings and pathway estimates. *significance at
p\.05 (indicated in the pathway portion of the model only). GPA
grade point average, FCAT Florida comprehensive achievement tests.
p=.06
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52 47
123
victimization and achievement pathway was not signifi-
cant. These model findings help shed light on potential
pathways explaining how victimization from peers can
have an indirect effect on academic performance via psy-
chological and engagement factors.
Results from this study contribute to an important
clarification about the mechanisms and findings in the
current literature by showing that the experience of vic-
timization at school is related to academic achievement
outcomes by way of important psychological and student
engagement mediators rather than simply by a decisive,
independent direct relationship between victimization and
achievement. These results are consistent with theories of
general and role strain such that students who experience a
significant stressor like victimization will have commen-
surate difficulties with psychological distress and school-
related problems (deBruyn 2005; Lin et al. 2011). Vic-
timized students presented with an interesting profile based
on the current findings. Simple associations revealed that,
as the level of self-reported victimization increased, stu-
dents experienced more symptoms of depression, anxiety,
anger, and general moodiness. In addition, victimization
and poor psychological symptoms predicted less student
engagement with school and academic goals. Thus, these
findings add to an accumulating literature that psycholog-
ical distress and student engagement are critical to youth
academic success or failure, particularly for those experi-
encing peer victimization.
One of the most significant contributions of the current
study is clarification in the relationship of victimization and
psychological distress with various school-related con-
structs (engagement and achievement). An ongoing debate
in the research literature is whether victimization is directly
and strongly related to achievement, with some studies
finding that it is (e.g., Schwartz et al. 2005) and others
suggesting that it is not (Nakamoto and Schwartz 2010).
Much previous research either tested only engagement
variables or only achievement variables in association with
victimization. For those studies that did examine engage-
ment and achievement, often these variables were aggre-
gated into one construct (e.g., Graham et al. 2006), making
it difficult to parse out the mechanism explaining students’
experiences with victimization, psychological symptoms,
and school performance. The current study demonstrates
that there is an underlying social-emotional process to
understanding academic achievement for victimized youth.
In order to be academically successful, students need
to demonstrate positive psychological functioning, which
primes them to be efficacious and engaged learners. Thus,
besides the obvious benefits of preventing peer victimiza-
tion, efforts directed at the psychological adjustment and
level of engagement of victimized youths may influence
achievement outcomes.
Despite the demonstration of a social-emotional mech-
anism, the combination of significant and non-significant
associations between victimization and achievement found
in this study is notable.
1
Past research looked at several
types of variables labeled as achievement variables, from
engagement-related variables (e.g., orientation toward
academic goals; Nansel et al. 2001; Wentzel 1998)to
performance-related variables (Juvonen et al. 2000), with
each finding adding to the larger picture of child academic
outcomes subsequent to victimization. Contrary to the
underlying thesis of a collection of previous work, some
researchers have found little to no conclusive association
between victimization experiences and academic perfor-
mance (Nakamoto and Schwartz 2010; Woods and Wolke
2004). Several longitudinal studies support the current
findings suggesting that, at a minimum, a victimized stu-
dent’s psychological functioning may be the mechanism
through which negative experiences with aggressive stu-
dents can have an impact on achievement at school (Buhs
et al. 2006; Graham et al. 2006; Juvonen et al. 2000).
Findings from the present study built upon this research
base by highlighting the significant role of student engage-
ment sequential to psychological outcomes in the mecha-
nism explaining victimization and achievement. The tested
mechanism was able to distinguish specifically the contri-
butions of engagement-related variables and performance
variables in the model.
Study Limitations, Strengths, and Future Directions
The findings of the present study must be considered in
light of several limitations. Overall, the majority of the
sample was Caucasian from primarily suburban and rural
communities and victimized infrequently; that is, youths in
the sample typically had experiences of overt and indirect
aggression a couple of times on average within the month
1
The simple correlation between victimization and achievement was
non-significant, potentially violating Baron and Kenny’s rules for
mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986). Recent work suggests that the
requirement for a significant a priori predictor-dependent variable
relationship may not be necessary to determine mediation (Shrout and
Bolger 2002), particularly when there is theoretical evidence to
suggest that the effect size between the variables could be small or
additional, undetected mediators may be at work in the model.
Researchers studying the underlying mechanisms of Baron and
Kenny’s prerequisites to mediation have determined that the signif-
icance test for the predictor-dependent relationship can, in fact,
rightfully fail given the direction of relationships estimated in a
mediation model (Zhao et al. 2010). If pathways in the indirect
portion of the model (i.e., victimization ?psychological dis-
tress ?student engagement; positive and negative directions) have
directionality that is opposite of the predictor-dependent relationship
(victimization ?achievement; negative direction), it is entirely
possible for the predictor-dependent variable relationship to result
in a model pathway with small effect size and to be non-significant in
the zero-order effect test of the relationship (e.g., simple correlation).
48 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
123
prior to assessment. Previous studies have reported that
victimized children are at risk of psychological difficulties,
but perhaps not to the degree as those who are chronically
and severely victimized (Olweus 1993). Thus, although
these findings may be applicable to numerous youths, they
may need to be explored in higher density, urban schools
that are more racially and ethnically diverse and in
environments with higher rates of school violence and
victimization.
Additionally, how constructs were measured is another
consideration. Victimization was assessed via two student-
reports, which has implications for how victimization by
peers is conceptualized in the present study. This study
examined student perceptions that they were attacked,
threatened, or harassed by their classmates. This is important
because studies have shown that there are some students
involved in problematic peer situations who viewed them-
selves as victimized, but were actually subject to a hostile
attribution bias that altered their interpretation of interper-
sonal interactions (Crick and Dodge 1994). Peer, teacher,
and even parental report may indicate very different levels of
victimization among these students (e.g., Totura et al.
2009a). Future studies should consider adding additional
ratings, such as teacher observations and peer nominations,
to obtain a more accurate picture of student difficulties.
Furthermore, academic achievement was measured using a
composite of grades and standardized test scores for
achievement. A potential consequence of this method is that
the use of achievement variables has been shown to lower the
association between achievement and victimization likely
due to the fact that grades and test scores often are correlated
only moderately (Nakamoto and Schwartz 2010; Schwartz
et al. 2005).
Because the study dealt with cross-sectional data, the
ability to make causal conclusions about construct rela-
tionships was limited. Ideally, data would have been col-
lected across multiple points in time to provide better
temporal support for the hypothesized mediated relation-
ships. Additional longitudinal studies would provide needed
evidence for detecting the direction of causal relationships
or even detecting that the causal relationships may go in
multiple directions with victimization leading to school
difficulty, but also school difficulty leading to increased
victimization.
Finally, some of the measures included may not be the
most psychometrically strong indicators of the proposed
constructs. Some measures were simply indices aggregated
from a series of items on global surveys selected by the
school district that assessed certain behaviors of interest in
the present study. However, other measures were quite
sound (i.e., Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, Center for Epide-
miological Studies Depression Scale). Future work could
focus on replicating these findings using even more psy-
chometrically sound measures.
Notwithstanding some of the concerns about the present
study, there are several strengths. Enough power existed to
examine multiple associations among student and school-
related constructs using the sophistication of structural equa-
tion modeling. Structural equation modeling has the ability to
account for and measure error variances simultaneously that
are associated with the measurement of constructs and the
validity of pathway associations that other statistical proce-
dures cannot. While data was missing from participants in the
model, the analyses were likely not significantly impacted
given the use of Full Information Maximum Likelihood pro-
cedures. Additionally, information was collected using mul-
tiple sources (student, teacher, and records data) within
multiple child domains (peer relationships, psychological
symptoms, student engagement, and achievement), which
limits the possibility that associations can be explained pri-
marily as the result of shared method variance. Using this rich
dataset in which multi-informant and multi-domain informa-
tion was compiled as indicators of constructs in a powerful
statistical design, associations between student victimization
and school outcomes that were contradictory across previous
studies were further clarified.
Implications for Research and Practice
The present study may have important implications for
understanding peer victimization at school and its association
with psychosocial and environmental factors and for further-
ing the theories of General Strain and role strain. These the-
ories suggest that strain from victimization contributes to
emotional distress and school-related difficulties. This study
helps specify the mechanism by which strain impacts
engagement and achievement at school. Simply stated, vic-
timization may not automatically predict that students will
have problems academically on exams and with class grades.
Rather, adolescent boys and girls who are harassed, teased,
threatened, and/or attacked at school by classmates, may be
likely to experience depressive, anxious, or angry sympto-
mology. This symptomatology may then be related to diffi-
culties in student engagement in school, which then could
have a negative influence on academic achievement.
The current findings, suggesting that even moderate
victimization presents a risk for academic difficulties,
potentially highlight an important gap in school-based bul-
lying efforts. Commensurate with recent research (Totura
et al. 2009a), students for whom victimization may not be
obvious or severe enough to come to the attention of teachers
may not be identified by teachers as demonstrating signifi-
cant emotional and academic issues. Teachers may be less
likely to intervene when bullying is not seen as a problem
or victims are not perceived to present with associated
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52 49
123
psychosocial problems that impact achievement. Studies
have shown that programmatic interventions often receive
lukewarm or limited support from school personnel, maybe
because consequences of bullying and victimization are not
conclusively and consistently seen as linked to academics,
the primary focus of educational systems (see Berger 2007
for a review). This study provides some support for the
interconnectedness of social development and emotionality
in relation with engagement in academics, the predominant
precursor to academic achievement (e.g., Carter et al. 2012).
In conjunction with the current findings, it may be
important for teachers who become aware that academic
difficulties may be related to adjustment problems stem-
ming from victimization to work closely with students,
counselors, and parents to develop intervention plans that
resolve the social and academic issues for at-risk students,
but do not exacerbate the problems. At the classroom level,
researchers have found that in grade school classrooms
where teachers address bullying and provide a learning
environment that is exceptionally achievement-oriented,
victimized students are likely to be more satisfied with
school and have better academic outcomes (Verkuyten and
Thijs 2002). Future research should address variables such
as the degree of student engagement support or even
emotional support provided by teachers, as well as the
nature of teacher-student relationships and classroom aca-
demic and behavioral norms, as these factors may buffer
victimized students from adverse academic outcomes and
serve as moderators to this predictive relationship. Such
approaches are consistent with environmental prevention
programs that work with the entire school culture to
develop policies and practices against bullying, which have
demonstrated success in reducing victimization (Olweus
2005; Salmivalli et al. 2011).
Taken as a whole, it is evident and concerning that
victimization is related to psychological difficulties and
limited engagement at school. Factors such as psycholog-
ical symptoms and engagement present important path-
ways for understanding the impact of adolescents’ peer
relationships on functioning at school. The seriousness of
victimization in middle school also has well-documented
consequences for future development. Without adequate
intervention and the support of adults and peers, victim-
ization has been linked to chronic school avoidance (see
Berger 2007; Totura and MacKinnon-Lewis 2011 for
review), delinquency (e.g., Hanish and Guerra 2002), and
retaliatory acts of aggression (Vossekuil et al. 2002).
Effects of adolescent victimization also have considerable
implications for development of social relationships, and
academic and employment success into adulthood (Mac-
millian and Hagan 2004). The current findings advance the
literature forward by presenting the negative experiences
that students can have at school with their peers and by
highlighting aspects that need continuing exploration in
order to further the understanding of peer aggression and
school adjustment.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Ray Gadd,
Katherine Divine, Sherri Dunham, Melinda Hess, and Amelia Van
Name Larson with the partnering school district; Dr. Delbert Elliott
with the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the
University of Colorado Boulder; University research assistants; and
the students and staff with participating schools for their efforts in
making this study possible. We also appreciate the valuable contri-
butions of Drs. George Batsche, Michael Brannick, Carol MacKin-
non-Lewis, Vicky Phares, Kevin Thompson, and Qutayba Abdullatif
on study conceptualization and research design.
Author contributions CT had the primary responsibility for design-
ing the study, collecting and analyzing the data, and preparing the
manuscript. MK provided substantial input in the conceptualization of
and in conducting the study. EG assisted with the development and
implementation of the research design and data collection protocol.
References
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student
engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological
issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5),
369–386.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherington, T. F. (1994). A general approach to
representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to
self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1(1), 35–67.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Berger, K. S. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten?
Developmental Review, 27, 90–126.
Betts, J. E.,Appleton, J., Reschly,A. L., Christenson,S. L., & Huebner, E.
S. (2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the Student
EngagementInstrument (SEI): Results from middle andhigh school
students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 84–93.
Brunner, T. M., & Spielberger, C. D. (2009). The state trait anger
expression inventory for children and adolescents (STAXI-C/A).
Psychological Assessment Resources: Sarasota, Florida.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and
victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer
group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achieve-
ment? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1–13.
Carlisle, N., & Rofes, E. (2007). School bullying: Do adult survivors
perceive long-term effects? Traumatology, 13(1), 16–26.
Carter, C. P., Reschly, A. L., Lovelace, M. D., Appleton, J. J., &
Thompson, D. (2012). Measuring student engagement among
elementary students: Pilot of the student engagement instrument—
elementary version. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(2), 61–73.
Castaneda, A., McCandless, B. R., & Palermo, D. S. (1956). The
children’s form of the manifest anxiety scale. Child Develop-
ment, 27, 317–326.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Youth risk
behavior surveillance—United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 51(Suppl.), SS-4.
Cowen, E. L., Dorr, D., Clarfield, S. P., Kreling, B., McWilliams, S.
A., Pokracki, F., et al. (1973). The AML: A quick screening
50 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
123
device for early identification of school maladaptation. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 12–35.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization,
depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school chil-
dren. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 123–130.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of
social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66,
710–722.
Cuevas, C. A.,Finkelhor, D., Clifford, C., Ormrod,R. K., & Turner, H. A.
(2010). Psychological distress as a risk factor for re-victimization in
children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(4), 235–243.
David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2007). Electronic media, violence,
and adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S1–S5.
deBruyn, E. H. (2005). Role strain. Engagement, and academic
achievement in early adolescence. Educational Studies, 31(1),
15–27.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and
implications. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.),
Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 177–201).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dorr, D., Stephens, J., Pozner, R., & Klodt, W. (1980). Use of the
AML scale to identify adjustment problems in fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade children. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 8, 341–352.
Dulums, C. N., Theriot, M. T., Sowers, K. M., & Blackburn, J. A.
(2004). Student reports of peer bullying in a rural school. Stress
Trauma, and Crisis: An International Journal, 7(1), 1–16.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to
succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 3 (3rd ed., pp. 1017–1096). New York: Wiley.
Flook, L., Repetti, R. L., & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social
experiences as predictors of academic performance. Develop-
mental Psychology, 41(2), 319–327.
Florida Department of Education (2002). Curriculum, Instruction and
Assessment. http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcat/. Retrieved on August 22, 2011.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Frojd, S. A., Nissinen, E. S., Pelkonen, M. U. I., Marttunen, M. J.,
Koivisto, A., & Kaltiala-Heino, R. (2008). Depression and
school performance in middle adolescent boys and girls. Journal
of Adolescence, 31, 485–498.
Graham, S., Bellmore, A. D., & Mize, J. (2006). Peer victimization,
aggression, and their co-occurrence in middle school: Pathways
to adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
34(3), 363–378.
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization
in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 34(3), 587–599.
Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionality, emotional
regulation, and school performance in middle school children.
Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 395–413.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of
patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on
peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-
analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K.,
et al. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups
of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29–49.
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an
understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement
and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8, 7–27.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2004). Interactive Lisrel 8.7.
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment,
psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early
adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2),
349–359.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences
and compromised academic performance across middle school
grades. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152–173.
Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). The
effects of school climate on changes in aggressive and other
behaviors related to bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer
(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological per-
spective on prevention and intervention (pp. 187–210). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K.,
Normand, S. L. T., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to
monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific
psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lin, W., Cochran, J. K., & Mieczkowski, T. (2011). Direct and
vicarious violent victimization and juvenile delinquency: An
application of General Strain Theory. Sociological Inquiry,
81(2), 195–222.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy
beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficul-
ties, 19(2), 119–137.
Lopez, C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Peer victimization and rejection:
Investigation of an integrative model of effects on emotional,
behavioral, and academic adjustment in early adolescence.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1),
25–36.
Macmillian, R., & Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the transition to
adulthood: Adolescent victimization, education, and socioeco-
nomic attainment in later life. Journal of Research of Adoles-
cence, 14, 127–158.
Masten, A. S., Roisman, G. I., Long, J. D., Burt, K. B., Obradovic, J.,
Riley, J. R., et al. (2005). Developmental cascades: Linking
academic achievement and externalizing and internalizing
symptoms over 20 years. Developmental Psychology, 41(5),
733–746.
McLeod, J. D., & Fettes, D. L. (2007). Trajectories of failure: The
educational careers of children with mental health problems.
American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 653–701.
Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated
with achievement? Social Development, 19(2), 221–242.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-
Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US
youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjust-
ment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16),
2094–2100.
Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones
may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The
psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer
harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol-
ogy, 34(1), 37–48.
Olweus, D. (1991). Victimization among school children. In R.
Baenniger (Ed.), Targets of violence and aggression (pp. 45–102).
Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-
term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52 51
123
withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341).
Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire.
Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL),
University of Bergen, N-5015 Bergen, Norway.
Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the
Olweus bullying prevention program. Psychology, Crime, &
Law, 11(4), 389–402.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879–891.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). A CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale
for research in the general population. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural
equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Robers, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J. (2012). Indicators of school crime
and safety: 2011 (NCES 2012-002/NCJ 236021). National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,
and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington, DC.
Roeser, R. W., Strobel, K. R., & Quihuis, G. (2002). Studying early
adolescents’ academic motivation, social-emotional functioning,
and engagement in learning: Variable- and person-centered
approaches. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15(4), 345–368.
Roeser, R. W., van der Wolf, K., & Strobel, K. R. (2001). On the
relation between social-emotional and school functioning during
early adolescence: Preliminary findings from Dutch and Amer-
ican samples. Journal of School Psychology, 39(2), 111–139.
Safe Community-Safe School Project (2002). The middle school/high
school survey revised. The Center for the Study and Prevention
of Violence, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Salmivalli, C., Karna, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Counteracting
bullying in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on
different forms of being bullied. International Journal of Behav-
ioral Development, 35(5), 405–411.
Santa Lucia, R. C., & Gesten E. L. (2000). Adjustment across the
middle school transition: Gender and race considerations.
Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington D.C.
Schwartz, D., & Gorman, A. H. (2003). Community violence
exposure and children’s academic functioning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 163–173.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005).
Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic function-
ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 425–435.
Shanahan, L., Copeland, W., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2008).
Specificity of putative psychosocial risk factors for psychiatric
disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, 49(1), 34–42.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Goal orientation, academic achievement, and
depression: Evidence in favor of a revised goal theory frame-
work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 366–375.
Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L. Y., & Lunghofer, L. (1995).
Adolescents’ exposure to violence and associated symptoms of
psychological trauma. Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation, 273, 477–482.
Spielberger, C. D. (1973). Preliminary test manual for the state-trait
anxiety inventory for children. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Totura, C. M. W., Green, A., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2009a).
Multiple informants in the assessment of psychological, behavioral,
and academic correlates of bullying and victimization. Journal of
Adolescence, 32, 193–211.
Totura, C. M. W., & MacKinnon-Lewis, C. (2011). Bullying in
middle school: What does it look like, why does it happen, and
who does it hurt? In M. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of teen
violence and victimization (vol. 1, pp. 105–125). Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO.
Totura, C. M. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R.,
Divine, K. P., Dunham, S., et al. (2009b). Bullying and
victimization among boys and girls in middle school: The
influence of perceived family and school contexts. The Journal
of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 571–609.
Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). School satisfaction of elementary
school children: The role of performance, peer relations, ethnicity,
and gender. Social Indicators Research, 59, 203–228.
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modezeleski, W.
(2002). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative:
Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
Weissman, M. M., Orvaschel, H., & Padian, N. (1980). Children’s
symptom and social functioning self-report scales: Comparison
of mothers’ and children’s reports. Journal of Nervous Mental
Disorders, 168(12), 736–740.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adoles-
cence: The role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 13, 4–20.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle
school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202–209.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977).
Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise
(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among
primary children and academic achievement. Journal of School
Psychology, 42, 135–155.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and
Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
Author Biographies
Christine M. Wienke Totura, Ph.D. is an Assistant Research
Professor in the Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center (SIRC)
with the School of Social Work at Arizona State University and a
Research and Faculty Associate in the College of Education at
Northern Arizona University. She received her doctorate in Clinical
Psychology from the University of South Florida. Her major research
interests include examination of school and community contextual
factors influencing youth peer relationships and social-emotional
development and implementation of youth prevention programs,
policies, and environmental strategies.
Marc S. Karver, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the University of
South Florida. He received his doctorate in Clinical Psychology from
Vanderbilt University. His major research interests include the
assessment, management, treatment, and prevention of youth suici-
dality and treatment process research.
Ellis L. Gesten, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology and clinical
psychologist at the University of South Florida whose research
interests are in the areas of bullying, social and emotional learning in
children and adolescents, and resilience.
52 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:40–52
123
