Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of results

From: Latinx bullying and depression in children and youth: a systematic review

Citation

Bullying types

Results

Analysis method

Conclusion

Bauman, 2008 [13]

Relational, overt

Coefficient, p value:

β = 0.32, p < 0.009 (relational)

β = 0.09, p = 0.396 (overt)a

Regression

Relational victimization had the strongest, and only significant, relationship with depression

Bauman et al. 2013 [13]

Traditional, cyber

Standardized coefficient, p value:

0.13, p < 0.01 (F, traditional)

0.20, p < 0.001 (M, traditional)

0.24, p < 0.001 (F, cyber)

0.10, p = 0.10 (M, cyber)a

SEM

Depression was a mediator for the relationship between traditional bullying and suicide for female and male participants, but only for female in cyber bullying

Bauman and Summers, 2009 [22]

Relational, overt

Coefficient, p value:

β = 0.30, p < 0.000 (relational)

β = 0.29, p < 0.000 (overt)

Regression

Victimization significantly predicted depression

Bogart et al. 2014 [14]

No distinction

Coefficient, p value:

β = 0.12, p < 0.001 (present)

β = 0.43, p < 0.001 (past)

β = 0.79, p < 0.001 (past and present)

For 10th grade, versus non-victims

Regression

Experiencing present victimization with a history of past victimization related to the strongest relationship with depression

Cardoso et al, 2017 [44]

Verbal, Physical, Ethnic-Biased

Unstandardized coefficient, p value:

0.585, p < 0.05 (relational)

0.413, p < 0.05 (ethnic-biased)

NR, p = NR (physical)a

SEM

Relational and ethnic-biased victimization were significantly associated with depression, but physical bullying was not

Forster et al. 2013 [26]

Direct, indirect

Coefficient, p value:

β = 0.25, p < 0.0001

Regression

Peer victimization, acculturative stress and lower family cohesion were risk factors for depression

Garnett et al. 2014 [45]

No distinction

Coefficient, p value:

β = 2.84, p < 0.01 (bully × disc)

LCA, regression

The intersection of discrimination and bullying victimization was associated with depression

Harrison, 2006 [39]

Overt, relational, reputational

Coefficient, p value; time 1:

β = 0.16, p < 0.01 (overt)

β = 0.19, p < 0.01 (relational)

β = 0.07, p = NR (reputational)a

Coefficient, p value; time 2:

β = 0.06, p = NR (overt)a

β = − 0.12, p < 0.05 (relational)

β = 0.19, p < 0.01 (reputational)

Regression

Peer victimization was generally associated with high depression, but causal and moderation patters differed based on type of victimization.

Landoll et al, 2013 [13]

Relational, overt, cyber

Standardized coefficient, p value:

0.40, p < 0.01 (cyber)

0.23, p = 0.04 (relational)

SEM

Peer victimization was related to higher rates of depression and anxiety with a specific examination of victimization on social media networks

Landoll et al, 2015 [40]

Relational, reputational, overt, cyber

Standardized coefficient, p value:

NR (overt)a

0.41, p < 0.001 (relational)

NR (reputational)a

0.16, p < 0.05 (cyber)

SEM

Relational and cyber bullying contribute to depression, with cyber bullying having a unique effect

Mihalas, 2008 [16]

Relational, physical, verbal

Coefficient, p value:

β = 0.46, p < 0.0001

Regression

Relational victimization was significantly associated with depression; hope and perceived social support were significant moderator variables

Reed et al, 2015 [43]

Traditional, cyber

Unstandardized coefficient, p value

0.57, p < 0.001 (traditional)

0.58, p < 0.001 (cyber)

PME

There were statistically significant paths from victimization to depression and suicide without involvement of depression, suicidal thinking or suicide planning

Romero et al, 2013 [17]

Traditional, cyber

Correlation, p value:

0.16, p < 0.001 (traditional)

0.19, p < 0.01 (cyber)

Correlation

Victimization correlated to depression; being a victim increased the likelihood of suicide after controlling for depression

Saluja et al, 2004 [46]

No distinction

Prevalence, risk ratio, 95% CI:

27.7%, RR 1.2, (1.1–1.6); F, 1–2×

36.8%, RR 1.7, (1.4–2.1); F, 2 + 10.2%, RR 1.4, (0.9–2.1); M, 1–2×

17.7%, RR 2.4, (1.7–3.4); M, 2+

Prevalence

Both bullies and victims were more than twice was likely to report depression

Schacter and Juvonen, 2017 [47]

No distinction

Coefficient, p value

0.143, p < 0.001 (depression led to bullying)

Mediation model

Depression for the adolescent and friend group increase the risk for perceptions of victimization through a self-blaming attributions model

Storch et al, 2005

Relational, overt

Standardized coefficient, p value:

0.56, p < 0.001 (overt, boys)

0.47, p < 0.001 (overt, girls)

0.23, p > 0.05 (relational, boys)*

0.31, p > 0.001 (relational, girls)

Linear regression

Overt and relational victimization were positively associated with depressive and other social-psychological adjustment symptoms

Wang et al, 2011 [48]

Physical, verbal, relational, cyber

Prevalence, R2:

21.2%, R2 = 0.115 (physical)

53.7%, R2 = 0.170 (verbal)

51.6%, R2 = 0.189 (relational)

13.8%, R2 = 0.107 (cyber)

Prevalence, regression

Depression was associated with all four types of bullying

  1. NOTES: aRelationship not significant; Abbreviations: SEM Structural Equation Modeling, LCA Latent Class Analysis, PME Path Model Estimate