Table 6.

Group means and comparisons using multiple regression analyses testing separately the unique associations between age 5 individual and family characteristics with nonvictimized children, children who escape victimization (PS victims), and chronic victims of bullying

	Group Means			Comparison Between Groups
	Nonvictims (N = 1255) M (SD)	PS Victims (N = 400) M (SD)	Chronic Victims (N = 286) M (SD)	Nonvictims Vs. PS Victims OR (95% CIs)	Nonvictims Vs. Chronic Victims OR (95% CIs)	PS Victims Vs. Chronic Victims OR (95% CIs)
Child Characteristics
Internalizing problems	11.5 (8.1)	12.0 (7.9)	15.0 (9.6)	1.0 (0.9−1.2)	1.2 (1.1−1.4)	1.2 (1.0−1.4)
Externalizing problems	16.3 (12.6)	18.8 (13.2)	24.9 (16.1)	1.2 (1.1−1.4)	1.5 (1.3−1.8)	1.3 (1.1−1.5)
IQ	101.3 (14.7)	100.6 (15.5)	94.1 (14.2)	1.0 (0.9−1.1)	0.7 (0.6−0.8)	0.7 (0.6−0.8)
Family Characteristics
SES	2.1 (0.8)	2.0 (0.8)	1.7 (0.8)	0.9 (0.8−1.0)	0.7 (0.6−0.8)	0.8 (0.7−0.9)
Social support	15.9 (5.4)	14.9 (5.7)	13.6 (5.9)	0.8 (0.7−1.0)	0.7 (0.6−0.8)	0.8 (0.7−1.0)
Child maltreatment (%)	0.7	1.0	5.9	1.2 (0.4−3.5)	6.3 (2.3−17.4)	5.2 (1.6−17.1)

Note: Means and standard deviations are presented as raw scores; regression analyses use standardized estimates. Analyses controlled for the potential confounding effect of gender. To investigate whether gender differentially influenced the associations between each child or family level predictor and bullying victimization status, an interaction term (gender by child or family level predictor) was included in regression models. None of the interaction terms yielded improvements in the fit of models above and beyond main effects only. Thus, analyses were conducted for the whole sample collapsed across gender. PS, primary school; SES, socioeconomic status.