Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychopathol. 2013 May;25(2):10.1017/S0954579412001095. doi: 10.1017/S0954579412001095

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.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure