Introduction

In their article, Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian
primary and high school students, Sakellariou, Carroll & Houghton (2012)
summarise a non-experimental descriptive research design with one
questionnaire distributed to 1,530 male students aged 9 – 18 from 3
independent boys schools across Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Schools and
students participated voluntarily. The questionnaire consisted of 33 items, which
were all close-ended and was distributed once. Sakellariou et al. encapsulate
their study around the need for more evidence linking the use of technology and
cyberbullying (p.537). Sakellariou et al. further validate their research around
providing teachers and connected professions a thorough grasp on the
prevalence of cyberbullying and victimisation, in order to develop policies and
procedures that adequately represent the problem (p.537).

Quality of research: methods, results and conclusions

As mentioned in the introduction the method used was questionnaire. The
questionnaire was developed by combining aspects of established research
instruments implemented in the field and the development of questions unique
to the study. 9 questions were drawn from a renowned source, the Olweus
Bully/Victim questionnaire (Olweus & Limber, 2010; Breivik & Olweus 2015).
Despite this, the article only reports on 12 items developed for research on
cyberbullying. No evidence is provided that these questions have been piloted
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 2015) however using Cronbach’s alpha the researchers
identified sound reliability (Sakellariou et al, 2012; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

The sample of the research was 1530 male school students in both primary (year
6) and secondary schools with a relatively even spread across year groups
(Sakellariou et al., 2015). The questionnaire was administered differently across
primary, junior secondary and senior secondary groups in ways that were
appropriate to their age. The sample schools were located in capital cities of
Australia and described by the authors as middle class, catering to a diversified
population (Sakellariou et al., 2012). This claim should be examined as no
justification was given in regards to why only male students, at single sex schools
were targeted nor any breakdown of the sample given besides age.

Results were analysed and reported based on the prevalence of cyberbullying

and victimisation. Data was divided based on the method of
cyberbullying/victimisation (emails, text messages, images and internet) and

Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892 1

also split between ages. Data was reported in percentages of prevalence. A chi-
square test was administered to examine the relationship between year level and
method of cyberbullying or victimisation experienced. The application of the chi-
square test should be considered. No explanation is provided of what chi-square
test was administered. Results seem to be interpreted as if a test of homogeneity
was used when only the test of independence would apply due to there being
only one sample (Franke, Ho & Christie, 2012).

The discussion and implications of the research gives a general dialogue about
the findings of the research and its implications. Sakellariou et al. (2012) make
meaningful connections between their findings and present research and also
discuss the relationship between experiences and characteristics of adolescence
(Gall et al., 2015). The authors also discuss at length the implications their
findings have on all regulators of adolescent behaviour i.e. teachers, schools and
parents. However, this discussion is not directly related to their own research.
Instead Sakellariou et al. rely on previous research to support their claims.

What are the limitations of the article?

The limitations of the article are positioned around the sample size, analysis of
the research and generalisation of the results. As mentioned, the questionnaire
was administered to 1530 students. In 2014 there were approximately 900,000
secondary students in NSW and QLD (ACARA, 2016), meaning that the sample
represents only 0.17% of the total population. No evidence is provided that the
sample population adequately represents the total population. This claim should
be supported not to only validate sample size but to validate sample source. All
schools were independent, same sex schools, which generally have lower levels
of diversity in comparison to public schools where majority of students are
enrolled (ACARA, 2016; Ho, 2011). The validity of the population should
therefore be interrogated as no evidence other than the authors’ assertion is
provided to legitimise the sample (Gall et al., 2015).

Errors may also exist in the analysis of the data. As previously outlined, the chi-
square tests administered to compare ages groups and method of
cyberbullying/victimisation experienced should be questioned as the authors do
not specify which chi-square test was applied and seem to be drawing
assumptions based on the test of homogeneity when the test of independence
was actually conducted (Franke et al., 2012). The researchers make meaningful
connections between different age groups rates of cyberbullying/victimisation

Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892 2

and characteristics of adolescence and this should not be discarded, however the
statistical evidence for these comparisons is not examined.

Finally, results are largely generalised given the small sample with an obvious
bias. Although Sakellariou et al. (2012) briefly mention the limitations of their
sample size; the drawing of conclusions based on this in order to reflect the
entire population concerned would be inappropriate (Muijs, 2004). Moreover,
the definition of bullying provided to students emphasises the repetition of the
abuse however, Sakellariou et al. include in their results the response rate of
students who have only experienced cyberbullying once.

Does the article answer the research hypothesis?

For the purpose of filling a gap in the current research, the article does provide
new evidence in regards to the prevalence of cyberbullying/victimisation as
intended (Gall et al., 2015). As the research was a non-experimental descriptive
quantitative study, there was no succinct research question, rather a broad area
to be investigated (Muijs, 2004). This characteristic is advantageous to the
research as discussed by Muijs (2004) as it allows findings to be widely applied,
which is what Sakellariou et al. (2012) have done. The research provides
detailed data on the use of various methods when cyberbullying which
Sakellariou et al. (2012) present with the intention of assisting educators to
“develop as comprehensive a understanding as possible” (p.535) in order to
develop effective strategies to combat the issue. This was outlined as a specific
aim of their research in their introduction.

However, the reported findings of the research are inconsistently applied and
generalised. For instance, Sakellariou et al. (2012) found that 90% of students
reported having no experience with cyberbullying/victimisation and suggest
educators should not dismiss traditional forms of bullying as non-obtrusive.
Sakellariou et al. then conversely define the issue as a “significant problem” and
make a suggestion that parents “take back the power to control technology”
(p.545), contradicting their previous statement.

Therefore, it can be argued that the objective of the research was only somewhat
met as no specific hypothesis was initially stated and consequently Sakellariou et
al. (2012) broadly apply their results to support their claim.

Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892 3

References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Agency. (2016). National

report on schooling in Australia 2014. Retrieved from

http://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Breivik, K. & Olweus, D. (2015). An item response theory analysis of the Olweus

Bullying scale. Aggressive Behavior, 41(1), 1-13. doi:10.1002/ab.21571

Franke, T.M., Ho, T., & Christie, C.A. (2012). The chi-square test: Often used and

more often misinterpreted. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 448-

458. doi:10.1177/1098214011426594

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2015). Applying educational research: How to

read, do and use research to solve problems of practice. (7th ed.). Hoboken,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ho, C. (2011). Respecting the Presence of Others: School Micropublics and

Everyday Multiculturalism. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 32(6), 603-

619. doi: 10.1080/07256868.2011.618106

Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education: with SPSS. London, UK:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Olweus, D. & Limber, S.P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and

dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124-134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-

0025.2010.01015.x

Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A., & Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of cyber victimisation

and bullying among male Australian primary and high school students.

Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892 4

 School Psychology International, 33(5), 533-549. doi:

10.1177/0143034311430374

Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha.

International Journal of Medical Education, 2(1), 53-55. doi:

10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Rebekah Donoghue - 17195892 5