چکیده:
پژوهش حاضر با هدف آزمون کفایت روان‌سنجی مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی در میان 326 نفر از دانش‌آموزان دختر شهر تهران که با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری گلوله برفی مجازی انتخاب شدند، انجام شد. در مطالعه همبستگی حاضر، دانش‌آموزان به مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی (بوئلگا و همکاران، 2019)، مقیاس ارتباط والد-نوجوان (پورسل، 2007) و مقیاس قربانی‌شدن توسط همسالان (جوزف و استاکتون، 2018) پاسخ دادند. به‌منظور تعیین روایی عاملی مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی از روش‌های آماری تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تحلیل عاملی تأییدی و به‌منظور بررسی همسانی درونی آن از ضرایب آلفای کرونباخ استفاده شد. همچنین، به‌منظور مطالعه روایی سازه، ضریب همبستگی بین مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی و مقیاس‌های ارتباط والد-نوجوان و قربانی‌شدن توسط همسالان گزارش شد. نتایج تحلیل مؤلفه‌های اصلی با استفاده از چرخش واریماکس نشان داد مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی از دو عامل قربانی مستقیم و قربانی غیرمستقیم در فضای مجازی تشکیل شده است. شاخص‌های برازش تحلیل عاملی تأییدی بر پایه نرم‌افزار آموس، وجود این دو عامل را تأیید کرد. نتایج مربوط به همبستگی مثبت بین ابعاد مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی با ابعاد مقیاس قربانی‌شدن توسط همسالان و همبستگی ضعیف با ابعاد مقیاس ارتباط والد-نوجوان به‌طور تجربی از روایی سازه مقیاس قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی حمایت کرد. مقادیر ضرایب همسانی درونی مقیاس (93/0=a) مطلوب گزارش شد. در مجموع، یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که مقیاس حاضر برای سنجش قربانی‌شدن در فضای مجازی در دانش‌آموزان دختر ابزاری روا و معتبر است.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Abstract The purpose of the present study was to investigate the psychometric adequacy of the Cyber-Victimization Scale among 326 girl students of Tehran that were selected with the use of virtual snowball sampling. In this correlational study, they completed the Cyber-Victimization Scale (Buelga et al., 2019), Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Purcell, 2007), and Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale (Joseph & Stockton, 2018). The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods and internal consistency were used to compute the CYBVICS's factorial validity and reliability, respectively. To examine the construct validity of the CYBVICS, correlations between different dimensions of CYBVICS with Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale and Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale were computed. The results of principal component analysis (PC) and varimax rotation replicated 2-factor structures: direct cyber-victimization and indirect cyber-victimization in the Iranian sample. The goodness of fit indices of confirmatory factor analysis with the use of AMOS confirmed the 2 extracted factors. Correlational analyses between CYBVICS's factors with Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale's factors provided initial evidence for the CYBVICS convergent validity & correlational analyses between CYBVICS's factors with Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale's factors provided initial evidence for the CYBVICS discriminant validity. Internal consistency for the CYBVICS's factors was desirable (a=0.93). In sum, these findings provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the CYBVICS as an instrument to assess the Cyber-Victimization among Iranian girl students.
Keywords Cyber-Victimization Scale (CYBVICS), Psychometric Properties, Girl Students
Introduction Cyberspace due to easy and fast access to instant messaging services and social networks, not only can be used for educational purposes, positive communication with others, and entertainment among teenagers, but it can also be easily used to bully others. cyberbullying is defined as intentional, aggressive, and repetitive behavior in which an individual or group of individuals uses electronic devices -primarily the internet and smartphones- to bully a person who is unable to defend himself or herself. The increase and spread of cyberbullying among adolescents can be due to several factors such as increasing access to and widespread use of smartphones. Continuous advances in technology have led to the emergence of new methods and the transformation of coercion in cyberspace. In one classification, victimization in cyberspace includes direct and indirect victimization; Direct victimization means verbal coercion such as sending offensive messages in forums or groups and social coercion such as social exclusion from online groups. Indirect victimization includes behaviors that occur through methods such as misrepresenting the victim, forgery and identity theft and hacking a personal account, or manipulating photos, videos, and rumors about the victim. Negative consequences of cyberbullying undermine adolescent freedom of action in the use and search of valuable online resources and lead to severe functional and psychosocial consequences such as academic and behavioral problems, depressive symptoms, and increased loneliness due to lack of parental awareness. Accordingly, to take timely intervention in resolving this social problem and prevent its negative consequences, it is necessary to evaluate and identify it using up-to-date and valid tools. Method: This is a correlational research based on the covariance matrix. The statistical population includes all female students of first and second high school in Tehran, whereby 326 of whom were selected using the virtual snowball sampling method. Students responded to the scales victimization in cyberspace (Buelga et al., 2019), Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Purcell, 2007), and Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale (Joseph & Stockton, 2018). To determine the factor validity of CYBVICS the statistical methods of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were used to examine its internal consistency. Also, to examine the construct validity of the CYBVICS, correlations between different dimensions of CYBVICS with Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale and Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale were reported. Results: The results of principal component analysis (PC) using varimax rotation empirically supported direct and indirect cyber victimization in the sample which explains %77.31 of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis based on AMOS software confirmed the existence of two factors and the validity of the victimization in cyberspace. The similarity of the factor structure of the Cyber-Victimization Scale with its original version shows that the interpretive power of its underlying theoretical logic is transcendental. The positive correlation of CYBVICS's factors with dimensions of the Peer Victimization Scale's supported the convergent validity of CYBVICS, indicating that the main motivations for both types of bullying may be the same and that the bully, do coercion regardless of the context, both in real life and in cyberspace. Cyberbullying and victimization are to a large extent part of the general pattern of bullying and victimization in the traditional sense that the use of electronic media is only one form of manifestation. Also, both types of victimization may be ascribed while socializing, especially from the parents, or be rooted in the characteristics of the victim. Significant but weak correlation analyses between CYBVICS's factors with Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale, while confirming the relationship between the family atmosphere and personal and social resources to face peer bullying, confirmed the divergent validity of CYBVICS. The negative atmosphere of the family, by reducing the sources of personal and social confrontation of adolescents, makes them easier targets for bullying and violence. The free pattern of family relationships with parents and the adolescent's sense of value and respect in the family is negatively related to cyber victimization and plays a protective role in this regard. The relationship between patterns of parent-adolescent relations and victimization in cyberspace suggests that in situations where the adolescent is exposed to cyberbullying, the family can play an important role in helping him or her get out of the situation. When the family has no source of protection or help, and the parent-child relationship is threatened, humiliated, and insulted, children experience more psychological and behavioral problems and consequently, more harm from being victimized by peers and so on. Finally, in this study, the numerical value of the internal consistency coefficient for measuring CYBVICS (a=0.93) showed that this scale has the necessary reliability. Conclusion The findings of the present study show that the Persian version of the Cyber-Victimization Scale as a multidimensional self-report tool in the field of cyberspace studies and psychological well-being and social adjustment, in terms of psychometrics, to measure the dimensions of cyber victimization is a valid and reliable enough and suggests its use to prevent and intervene in the problem of cyber victimization in the adolescent community and also to identify the cyber victims in school.
References Aboujaoude, E., Savage, M., Starcevic, V., & Salame, W. (2015). Cyberbullying: Review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(1), 10–18. Alonso, C., & Romero, E. (2017). Aggressors and victims in bullying and cyberbullying: a study of personality profiles using the Five-Factor Model. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, E76. Álvarez-García, D., Pérez, J. C. N., González, A. D., & Pérez, C. R. (2015). Risk factors associated with cybervictimization in adolescence. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(3), 226-235. Antoniadou, N., Kokkinos, C. M., & Markos, A. (2016). Development, construct validation and measurement invariance of the Greek cyber-bullying/victimization experiences questionnaire (CBVEQ-G). Human Behavior, 65, 380–390. Barnes, H. (1982). Parent-adolescent communication. Family inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle, 33-46. Betts, L. R., Houston, J. E., & Steer, O. L. (2015). Development of the multidimensional peer victimization scale–revised (MPVS-R) and the multidimensional peer bullying scale (MPVS-RB). The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176(2), 93-109. Boulton, M. J., Smith, P. K., & Cowie, H. (2010). Short-term longitudinal relationships between children’s peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions: Evidence for reciprocity. School Psychology International, 31(3), 296-311. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American psychologist, 32(7), 513-53. Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Musitu, G. (2010). Cyberbullying: victimización entre adolescentes a través del teléfono móvil y de Internet. Psicothema, 22, 784–89. Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Musitu, G. (2012). Validación de la escala de victimización entre adolescentes a través del teléfono móvil y de Internet. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 32: 36–42. Buelga, S., Martínez-Ferrer, B., & Cava, M. J. (2017). Differences in family climate and familycommunication among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bully–victims in adolescents. Computers inHuman Behavior, 76, 164–73. Buelga, S., Martínez-Ferrer, B., & Musitu, G. (2016). Family relationships and cyberbullying. In Cyberbullying across the Globe: Gender, Family and Mental Health. Edited by Raúl Navarro, Santiago Yuberoand Elisa Larrañaga. Basel: Springer International Publishing, pp. 94–114, ISBN 978-3-319-25552-1. Buelga, S., Martínez-Ferrer, B., Cava, M. J., & Ortega-Barón, J. (2019). Psychometric Properties of the CYBVICS Cyber-Victimization Scale and Its Relationship with Psychosocial Variables. Social Sciences, 8, 13. Cava, M. J., & Buelga, S. (2018). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Victimización Escolar entre Iguales (VE-I). Revista Evaluar, 18, 40–53. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2018). Social responsibility on the internet: Addressing the challenge of cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 42–52. Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer vic-timization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (2009). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overtaggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367. Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. (2015). A social–ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 109–117. Cross, D., Lester, L., & Barnes, A. (2015). A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of cyber and traditional bullying victimization. International Journal of Public Health, 60, 207–217. Del Río, M. I., Mendo, S., Del Barco, B., & Felipe, E. (2017). Abuso del Móvil en Estudiantes Universitarios y Perfiles de victimización y agresión. Adicciones. 29, 245–55. Dempsey, J. P., Fireman, G. D., & Wang, E. (2006). Transitioning out of peer victimization in school children: Gender and behavioral characteristics. J Psychopathol Behave Ass, 28, 273-282. Estévez, E., Musitu, G., & Herrero, J. (2005). El rol de la comunicación familiar y del ajuste escolar en la salud mental del adolescente. Salud Mental, 28, 81–89. Ferrara, P., Ianniello, F., Villani, A., & Corsello, G. (2018). Cyberbullying a modern form of bullying: Let’s talk about this health and social problem. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 44. Fridh, M., Lindström, M., & Rosvall, M. (2015). Subjective health complaints in adolescent victims of cyber harassment; moderation through support from parents/friends –a Swedish population- based study. BMC Public Health, 15, 949. Fullchange, A., & Furlong, M. J. (2016). An exploration of effects of bullying victimization from a complete mental health perspective. SAGEOpen, 6(1), 1-12. Garaigordobil, M. (2017). Antisocial behavior: Connection with bullying/cyberbullying and conflict resolution. Psychosocial Intervention, 26, 47–54. Garaigordobil, M., &. Machimbarrena, J. M. (2017). Stress, competence, and parental educational styles in victims and aggressors of bullying and cyberbullying. Psicothema, 29, 335–40. García, F., & Musitu, G. (1999). AF5: Autoconcepto Forma 5. Madrid: Tea. García, F., Musitu, G., & Veiga, F. (2006). Autoconcepto en adultos de España y Portugal. Psicothema, 18 (3), 551-556. García-Grau, P., Pérez, D. A., & Prado-Gascó, V. J. (2014). Self-concept in preadolescence: A brief version of AF5 scale. Motriz, Rio Claro, 20(2), 151-157. Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Lenzi, M., & Vieno, A. (2014). Bullying victimization at school and headache: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 54, 976–986. Hinduja, S., & Patchin. J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–56. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Joseph, S., & Stockton, H. (2018). The multidimensional peer victimization scale: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42. Kline, R. B., (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2ed. New York: Guilford Press. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073–137. Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., Ovejero, A., & Navarro, R. (2016). Loneliness, parent–child communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 1–8. Lee, C. H., & Shin, N. (2017). Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 352–58. Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1091–108. Lohbeck, A., & Petermann, F. (2018). Cybervictimization, self-esteem, and social relationships among German secondary school students. Journal of School Violence, 17, 472–86. Martínez-Ferrer, B., Moreno, D., & Musitu, G. (2018). Are adolescents engaged in the problematic use of social networking sites more involved in peer aggression and victimization?. Frontiers in Psychology, 29(9),801. McDougall, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence. American Psychologist, 70, 300-310. Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parentalmediation, onlineactivities, andcyberbullying. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 387–393 Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228. Mitchell, K. J., & Jones, L. M. (2015). Cyberbullying and bullying must be studied within a broader peer victimization framework. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 473–74. Moreno-Ruiz, D., Martinez-Ferrer, B., & García-Bacete, F. (2019). Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 252–59. Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., & Swift, L. E. (2014). Relations among multiple types of peer victimization, reactivity to peer victimization, and academic achievement in fifth-grade boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,60(3), 302-327. Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer‐victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 26(2), 169-178. Nahidpoor, F., Khosravi, Z., & Khaghanifard, M. (2014). Structural model of the relationship between emotional-psychological-behavioral problems in the main family and womens’ marital satisfaction. Quarterly Journal of Women's Studies Sociological and Psychological, 12(3), 41-59.[Text in Persian] Nansel, T. R., Haynie, D. L., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2003). The association of bullying and victimization with middle school adjustment. J Appl Sch Psychol, 19, 45-61. Navarro, R., Ruiz-Oliva, R., Larrañaga, E., & Yubero, S. (2015). The impact of cyberbullying and social bullying on optimism, global and school-related happiness and life satisfaction among 10-12-year-old schoolchildren. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 10, 15–36. Navarro, R., Yubero, S., & Larrañaga, E. (2016). Cyberbullying Across the Globe: Gender, Family and Mental Health. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Navarro, R., Yubero, S., & Larrañaga, E. (2018). Cyberbullying victimization and fatalism in adolescence: Resilience as a moderator. Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 215–21. Nocentini, A., Fiorentini, G., Di Paola, L., & Menesini, E. (2018). Parents, family characteristics and bullying behavior: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 41-50. Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341). London: Psychology Press. Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation. Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190. Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780. Ortega-Baron, J., Buelga, S. Cava, M. J. & Torralba, E. (2017). School violence and attitude toward authority of student perpetrators of cyberbullying. Journal of Psychodidactics, 22, 14–23. Ortega-Barón, J., Buelga, S., & Cava, M. J. (2016). The influence of school climate and family climate among adolescents’ victims of cyberbullying. Comunicar, 24, 57–65. Purcell, S. (2007). The parent-adolescent relationship, adolescents’ disclosure to parents, and adolescent substance use. A dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Psychology. Ross, D. (2002). Bullying. In J Sandoval. Handbook of crisis counseling, intervention, and prevention in the schools (electronic version) 2nd ed. (pp. 105-135): Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Serafini, G., Muzio, C., Piccinini, G., Flouri, E., Ferrigno, G., Pompili, M., Girardi, P., & Amore, M. (2015). Life adversities and suicidal behavior in young individuals: A systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 1423–46. Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1–18. Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Expanding the social-ecological framework of bullying among youth. Bullying in north American schools, 3-10. Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying. Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis-stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344-353. Tabori, A. V. (2007). Student victimization and bullying in the UnitedStates and Italy: A cross national study of experienced school events and stress symptoms. Unpublished manuscript, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Tavassoli, A., & Jalalvand, E. (2015). Using internet and the tendency to self-showing (Case study of female graduates of one university in Tehran). Quarterly Journal of Women's Studies Sociological and Psychological, 13(4), 95-122. [Text in Persian] Thompson, R., Litrownik, A. J., Everson, M. D., English, D. J., Dubowitz, H., Proctor, L., & Flaherty, E. G. (2012). Adverse experiences and suicidal ideation in adolescence: Exploring the link using LONGSCAN samples. Psychology of Violence, 2, 211–225. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–87. Tomás, J. M., & Oliver, A. (2004). Análisis psicométrico confirmatorio de una medida multidimensional del autoconcepto en español. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 38, 285-294. Van Dijk, M. P., Branje, S., Keijsers, L., Hawk, S. T., Hale, W. W., & Meeus, W. (2013). Self–concept clarity across adolescence: Longitudinal associations with open communication with parents and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1861–1876. Van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 435–42. Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(5), 483–488. Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375. Wang, J., Iannotti. R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2012). Patterns of adolescent bullying behaviors: physicalverbal exclusion rumorand cyber.Sch Psychol, 50(4), 521-534. Willard, N. E. (2007). The authority and responsibility of school officials in responding to cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S64–S65. Williams, A. L., & Merten, M. J. (2011). IFamily: Internet and social media technology in the family context. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40(2), 150–170. Yarigarravesh, M., Ameri, F., Farahbijari, A., & Dehshiri, R. (2019). investigating the relationship between mothers use of social networks and behavioral disorders in their children. Quarterly Journal of Women's Studies Sociological and Psychological, 17(1), 193-218. [Text in Persian] Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, mental health and gender atypical behaviour: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50, 525–538. Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying victimization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 439–49. Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Marín-López, I. (2016). Cyberbullying: A systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicología Educativa, 22, 5–18.
خبرنامه
برای ثبت نام در خبرنامه و دریافت خبرنامه ایمیل خود را وارد نمایید.
