Skip to main content

Table 1 RCTs focused on school-bullying perpetration and/or victimization

From: The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards

Study a

SOR bias rating in the reviewb

RCT report mentions registry or protocolc

Our rating using criteria stated in the reviewd

1. Baldry and Farrington (2004) [25]

Low

No

Unclear

2. Beran and Shapiro (2005) [26]

Low

No

Unclear

3. Berry and Hunt (2009) [27]

Low

No

Unclear

4. Bonell et al. (2015) [28]

Low

Yes

Low

5. Boulton and Flemington (1996) [29]

Low

No

Unclear

6. Brown et al. (2011) [30]

Low

No

Unclear

7. Chaux et al. (2016) [31]

Low

No

Unclear

8. Cissner and Ayoub (2014) [32]

Low

No

Unclear

9. Connolly et al. (2015) [33]

Low

No

Unclear

10. Cross et al. (2011) [34]

Low

No

Unclear

11. DeRosier and Marcus (2005) [35]

Low

No

Unclear

12. Domino (2013) [36]

Low

No

Unclear

13. Espelage et al. (2015) [37]

Low

No

Unclear

14. Fekkes et al. (2006) [38]

Low

No

Unclear

15. Fekkes et al. (2016) [39]

Low

No

Unclear

16. Fonagy et al. (2009) [40]

Low

No

Unclear

17. Frey et al. (2005) [41]

Low

No

Unclear

18. Garaigordobil and Martínez-Valderrey (2015) [42]

Low

No

Unclear

19. Holen et al. (2013) [43]

Low

No

Unclear

20. Hunt (2007) [44]

Low

No

Unclear/high

21. Jenson et al. (2013) [45]

Low

No

Unclear

22. Ju et al. (2009) [46]

Low

No

Unclear/high

23. Kaljee et al. (2017) [47]

Unclear

No

Unclear

24. Kärnä et al. (2011b) [48]

Low

No

Unclear

25. Kärnä et al. (2013) [49]

Low

No

Unclear

26. Knowler and Frederickson (2013) [50]

Low

No

Unclear

27. Krueger (2010) [51]

Low

No

Unclear

28. Li et al. (2011) [52]

Low

No

Unclear

29. McLaughlin (2009) [53]

Low

No

Unclear

30. Meyer and Lesch (2000) [54]

Low

No

Unclear

31. Nocentini and Menesini (2016) [55]

Low

No

Unclear

32. Ostrov et al. (2015) [56]

Low

No

Unclear/high

33. Polanin (2015) [57]

Low

No

Unclear

34. Rosenbluth et al. (2004) [58]

Low

No

Unclear

35. Spröber et al. (2006) [59]

Low

Unknowne

Unknown

36. Stallard et al. (2013) [60]

Low

Yes

High

37. Topper (2011) [61]

Unclear

No

Unclear

38. Trip et al. (2015) [62]

Low

No

Unclear

39. Tsiantis et al. (2013) [63]

Low

No

Unclear

40. Waasdorp et al. (2012) [64]

High

No

Unclear

41. Wölfer and Scheithauer (2014) [24]

Low

No

Unclear/high

42. Yanagida et al. (2019) [23]

Low

No

Unclear

Summary

39 Low,

1 High,

2 Unclear

2 Yes,

39 No,

1 Unknown

1 Low

1 High,

4 Unclear/high,

35 Unclear,

1 Unknown

  1. aCited in the review [6]. Bold font = RCTs in both Tables 9 and 10 (k = 26); normal font = RCTs in Table 9 (perpetration) only (k = 9); Italic font = in Table 10 (victimization) only (k = 7)
  2. bFrom Appendix B of the review [6]
  3. cEach document was electronically searched for the words “Registry”, “Registered”, “Registration”, and “Protocol”. “No” = this search did not yield a reference to a registry or study protocol; “Yes” = this search did yield a reference to a registry or publicly available study protocol
  4. dCriteria provided in the review ([6] p. 19)
  5. eThis study is in a German journal. It could not be located through Inter-library Loan; therefore, we could not rate the risk of SOR bias for this study