Defining and Measuring Cyberbullying Within the Larger Context of Bullying Victimization

Purpose: To inform the scientific debate about bullying, including cyberbullying, measurement. Methods: Two split-form surveys were conducted online among 6-17-year-olds (n = 1,200 each) to inform recommendations for cyberbullying measurement. Results: Measures that use the word "bully" result in prevalence rates similar to each other, irrespective of whether a definition is included, whereas measures not using the word "bully" are similar to each other, irrespective of whether a definition is included. A behavioral list of bullying experiences without either a definition or the word "bully" results in higher prevalence rates and likely measures experiences that are beyond the definition of "bullying." Follow-up questions querying differential power, repetition, and bullying over time were used to examine misclassification. The measure using a definition but not the word "bully" appeared to have the highest rate of false positives and, therefore, the highest rate of misclassification. Across two studies, an average of 25% reported being bullied at least monthly in person compared with an average of 10% bullied online, 7% via telephone (cell or landline), and 8% via text messaging. Conclusions: Measures of bullying among English-speaking individuals in the United States should include the word "bully" when possible. The definition may be a useful tool for researchers, but results suggest that it does not necessarily yield a more rigorous measure of bullying victimization. Directly measuring aspects of bullying (i.e., differential power, repetition, over time) reduces misclassification. To prevent double counting across domains, we suggest the following distinctions: mode (e. g., online, in-person), type (e. g., verbal, relational), and environment (e. g., school, home). We conceptualize cyberbullying as bullying communicated through the online mode. (C) 2012 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.