Content uploaded by Suzy Clarkson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suzy Clarkson on Apr 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
ULLYING is an international problem
(Olweus, 2010; Smith et al., 2004) with
one-in-10 children worldwide reporting
being bullied (Currie et al., 2012). For some
time bullying has received national and
international attention, with the publication
of news reports on bullying related suicides,
government reports and academic research
(Kim, Koh & Leventhal, 2005; Olweus,
1993a; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Addressing
bullying through school-wide interventions
is an area where psychologists have played
and can continue to play an important role
in promoting key educational objectives (for
example, Ttofi & Farrington, 2011).
Olweus was the first person to systemati-
cally research the anatomy of bullying in
Norway in the early 1970s (Olweus, 1973).
The most cited and internationally used defi-
nition proposed by Olweus defines bullying
as a repeated and intentional aggressive act,
which typically involves an imbalance of
power (Olweus, 2001, 2005). Bullying behav-
iour is classified into four main categories:
physical; verbal; relational; and cyber
bullying (Nishana, 2004). Olweus’ seminal
research into bullying behaviour has
prompted a global endeavour (Juvonen &
Graham, 2001).
Eleven per cent of UK and 10 per cent of
Welsh children report being regularly
bullied (Currie et al., 2012). During primary
school years, physical and verbal bullying
predominate (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Rivers
& Smith, 1994). Bullying has long-term
consequences for both bullies and victims.
For bullies it is a strong predictor of subse-
quent delinquency and anti-social behaviour
(Merrel et al., 2008; Olweus, 2011; O’Moore,
2000; Ttofi et al., 2011) and these aggressive
behaviour patterns can persist, increasing
the likelihood of acting violently as an adult
(Farrington, 1993). For victims repeated
exposure to bulling undermines the health,
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 49
© The British Psychological Society, 2015
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying
prevention programme in the UK
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
The history of bullying research is summarised and the KiVa bullying prevention programme described.
KiVa is a whole-school programme with universal and indicated actions for children aged 7 to 15 years in
the Finnish comprehensive school system. It was developed at Turku University, Finland, by social
psychologist Christina Salmivalli and colleagues. It has demonstrated significant benefits in a large-scale
randomised controlled trial and a subsequent roll-out of the programme to 90 per cent of schools in the
Finnish comprehensive system (www.kivakoulu.fi/). KiVa is based on research showing the important role
played by bystanders in the bullying process. The universal and indicated actions within the programme
are described. The universal actions consist of class lessons, whole school actions and a parent website.
Evidence from the Finnish trials is summarised.
The paper describes the introduction of the programme to the UK in 2012 and the results from the first,
psychologist led, UK pilot trial of the programme are reported. Seventeen schools participated in the trial of
Unit 2, at the time the only material available in English (for children aged 9 to 11 years), and delivered
KiVa lessons to year 5 and/or year 6 pupils. Children completed the online KiVa survey prior to programme
commencement and at the end of the school year. Significant reductions were reported in bullying and
victimisation. Teachers reported high levels of pupil acceptance and engagement with lessons. The paper
concludes with reflections on the role that educational and other applied psychologists can play in further
disseminating this programme.
Keywords: Bullying; victimisation; intervention; schools; KiVa.
B
and wellbeing of more vulnerable pupils
(Egan & Perry 1998; Rigby, 1999) signifi-
cantly increasing the likelihood of psychi-
atric disorders in adulthood (Bond et al.,
2001; Egan & Perry, 1998; Peter et al., 2008;
Ttofi, 2011). The longer that victimisation
persists, the greater the risk of maladjust-
ment (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004).
Research on gender differences is incon-
sistent. Olweus (2010) reports large gender
differences with girls reporting lower
frequencies of all types of bullying and
victims of both genders reporting that 83 per
cent were bullied primarily by one or more
boys and only 17 per cent by girls. Salmivalli
et al. (2005) corroborate these findings,
reporting that boys used all forms of aggres-
sion (physical, verbal and indirect) more
than girls. Other recent research reports
lower gender differences and that gender is
not a significant predictor of bullying
(Barboza et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2004;
Stassen Berger, 2007).
School-based bullying
Many children regularly witness bullying at
school (Eslea et al., 2003). It is widespread
and frequent in most school settings (Pelle-
grini, 2002) and most bullying research has
been conducted in schools (Olweus, 1978;
Salmivalli et al., 1996). Salmivalli and
colleagues were the first to explore the role
of bystander in the bullying process.
Bystanders influence bullying, by inter-
vening and helping the victim, supporting
the bully or choosing to ignore the situation
(Salmivalli et al., 1996). Four participant
bystander roles have been identified – ‘assis-
tant’ of the bully, ‘reinforcer’ of the bully,
‘outsider’ and ‘defender’ of the victim
(Salmivalli et al., 1996). However, from the
perspective of the victim, outsiders, who walk
away and fail to intervene, are viewed as
supporting the bully by demonstrating silent
complicity (Jeffrey et al., 2001).
Pupils report bullying as occuring more
frequently than do teachers (Low et al.,
2011). The likelihood of reporting bullying
incidents, and the success with which they
are dealt, is dependent on the teacher and
school context (Kochender & Ladd, 1997).
In one third of cases, pupils report that when
teachers do intervene, either they do not
alter the situation (Fekkes et al., 2005), or
make the situation worse (Rigby & Bagshaw,
2003). The large discrepancy between
teachers’ and pupils’ views on the severity
and frequency of bullying (Low et al., 2011;
Newman & Murray, 2005) highlights the
need for staff training in awareness and for
effective responses. The school context
affects rates of bullying with frequency
varying as much as four to six times across
schools (Mellor, 1999; Olweus, 1993b; Rigby,
2002).
Bullying interventions
In 1982, following the suicide of three
Norwegian boys, Olweus was commissioned
by the Ministry of Education, to design and
evaluate an intervention to prevent bullying,
the ‘Olweus Bullying Prevention Pro-
gramme’. The programme targets the school
culture, providing a sense of community and
reducing opportunities for bullying behav-
iour. Pupils reported a 50 per cent reduction
in bullying and victimisation (Olweus, 1991;
Olweus et al., 1999) and significant reduc-
tions in self-reported anti-social behaviour,
including truancy, alcohol use, theft, and
vandalism (Olweus, 2005). The programme
has since been implemented in many coun-
tries and has mostly demonstrated positive
although more modest effects than the
original study (Olweus et al., 1999; Smith et
al., 2004). Elliot (1999) highlights the
scarcity of evidence-based programmes to
prevent or reduce bullying in the US.
However, school-based bullying interven-
tions, that incorporate a whole-school
approach, appear to be the most effective
and can reduce bullying behaviour signifi-
cantly (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007).
Age has an impact on the effectiveness of
bullying interventions, with the greatest
effects being achieved at age 10 to 12 years
(Menesini et al., 2003; Salmivalli et al.,
2004).
50 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
KiVa
Despite excellent academic outcomes
(Sahlberg 2011), the Finnish Government
decided that a concerted effort would also
be made to enhance child well-being. For
many years the government relied upon
legislative changes that placed obligations
on schools to design their own action plans
and required commitment from school staff
to intervene immediately in bullying situa-
tions (the ‘zero tolerance’ method).
However, this legislation did not impact on
the prevalence figures. Recognising the work
of Salmivalli and colleagues at Turku Univer-
sity on the architecture of bullying and the
role of bystanders, the Finnish Ministry of
Education and Culture contracted with the
University to develop and evaluate a school-
based bullying programme for schools
within the Finnish comprehensive system
(grades one to nine, children aged 7 to 15
years). The programme includes universal
actions, directed at class and school level,
and indicated actions, for addressing
confirmed cases of bullying. The universal
curriculum contains three lesson units suit-
able for ages 7 to 9, 10 to 12, and 13 to
15 years respectively.
KiVa is an acronym for ‘Kiusaamista
Vastaan’ which, translated, means ‘against
bullying’ and also ‘kiva’ is a Finnish adjective
for nice (Salmivalli, 2010). KiVa is based on
robust research, which suggests that the reac-
tions of bystanders maintain or decrease
bullying behaviours (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
The KiVa programme provides training,
resources, class lessons, online activities, and
parental advice and support. It aims to affect
norms and skills, behaviour, attitudes and
the classroom and school climate.
The universal actions in Units 1 and 2
each consist of 10 structured lessons, each
lasting approximately an hour-and-a-half.
Typically, the lessons are split into two
45-minute lessons a month. Lessons cover
being part of a team, learning about
emotions, group interaction processes and
group pressure. They also provide explana-
tions about types of bullying, how it is influ-
enced by the bystander, its consequences
and how both individuals and the class as a
group can reduce bullying. The lessons
include: discussions (class and small
groups), role-play, videos of people talking
about having been bullied, group work and
whole class activities. Both Units 1 and 2
have online games linked with lesson topics
that teach pupils through a paradigm of
‘I know, I can, I do’. The games can be
played at school or at home. KiVa posters are
displayed throughout the school and yellow,
high visibility, KiVa vests are worn by staff at
break and lunchtimes to remind both pupils
and staff that they are in a KiVa school.
Parent involvement and support is encour-
aged and KiVa provides a public access
website for parents and others interested to
learn more about KiVa, bullying and how to
support children to speak up about or stand
against bullying.
The programme promotes social skills,
such as making friends, to support and
protect a child from victimisation (Hanish et
al., 2005). Providing bullied pupils with
friendship skills reduces their risk of being
bullied and increases the likelihood of their
being accepted, and for other children it
increases their empathy for their bullied
peers (Pelegrini, 2002). Empathy provides
children with the foundations for friend-
ships, conflict resolutions and social respon-
sibility. Pupils possessing higher levels of
empathy are typically more socially skilled,
liked by their peers, and less aggressive
(Arsenio et al., 2000; Denham, 2006).
The programme includes detailed indi-
cated actions undertaken by a KiVa team and
the class teacher when a bullying incident is
identified. The KiVa team can include
teachers, members of school staff, educa-
tional psychologists, governors and others.
Incidents that are brought to staff attention
are screened against the KiVa definition of
bullying. Cases that meet the criteria (the
behaviour of a more powerful or high status
child/children towards a lower status child
and an intentional and repeated act) are
dealt with by the KiVa team. In the Finnish
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 51
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK
randomised controlled trial (RCT) approxi-
mately 60 per cent of referred cases were
accepted by the KiVa team, on average nine
cases per school per year.
Indicated actions are scripted and discus-
sions are short and solution focused.
A member of the KiVa team first meets the
victim, to gain an understanding of the situa-
tion and offer support. The team then meet
with the bully/bullies. In this meeting the
bully is asked to commit to actions to help the
victim. Follow-up meetings are arranged with
both parties. The class teacher also arranges
for one or two high status peers, whom the
victim has identified as not having been
involved in the bullying, to support the victim.
This process encourages continued positive
behaviour (Rigby, 1996). Pupils complete an
annual survey at the end of the school year
reporting on whether they have been
victimised or have bullied others. The results
are fed back to the school so that progress in
reducing bullying can be evaluated.
Research on KiVa
The programme was developed, piloted and
evaluated between 2006 and 2009, in an RCT
involving 28,000 pupils in 234 schools (117
intervention and 117 control). Pupils
completed a wide variety of assessments that
included self-reports, peer reports and
dyadic questions. Teachers also completed
assessments concerning their attitudes
towards, and effectiveness and effort in,
dealing with bullying incidents (Salmivalli,
2010). After one year of implementation,
KiVa was found to reduce both bullying and
victimisation significantly for 7- to 11-year-
old children. Results for children aged 12 to
15 years varied according to gender, with
larger effects for boys than girls. The results
also varied according to gender split of the
class, with a larger effect when there was a
higher proportion of boys in the class (Kärnä
et al., 2011a). Outcomes from the KiVa team
actions demonstrated a 98 per cent improve-
ment in the victims’ situation and that the
bullying ceased in 86 per cent of reported
incidents (Kärnä et al., 2011a). Other posi-
tive results included improvements in
academic engagement and school liking
(Salmivalli et al., 2012) and increased
empathy towards victims and commitment to
defend victims (Kärnä, 2011b) as well as
reduced internalising problems and negative
peer perceptions (Williford et al., 2012).
Following the successful RCT results, the
Finnish national roll out of KiVa began in
autumn 2009, initially with 1450 schools.
Since then the programme has been dissem-
inated to many more schools and is now
delivered in over 90 per cent of comprehen-
sive schools in Finland (approximately 2700
schools). It is showing year on year reduc-
tions in bullying.
KiVa in the UK
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
schools are required by law to have a policy
for dealing with bullying. However, like the
situation in Finland prior to the develop-
ment of KiVa, the law only provides guidance
on what is required and the content and
quality of work done varies considerably
between schools (Smith et al., 2008). A wide
range of interventions to reduce bullying are
in use across the UK, including peer support
programmes and the Safe to Learn initiative
(Department for Children, Schools and
Families, 2008). To date there has been rela-
tively little systematic evaluation of anti-
bullying interventions in the UK. Of the 44
studies identified in the Ttofi and Farrington
review (2011) only three were conducted in
the UK. One, the Short Video Intervention,
was a secondary school intervention and
one, the Social Skills Training Programme,
was an intervention for bullies and victims.
Only one intervention, the Sheffield Anti-
bullying Project, evaluated a whole school
approach that had some similarities to KiVa,
in both primary and secondary schools. The
project involved a Core Intervention, the
whole school policy on bullying, and
optional self-selected interventions from
three categories, curriculum-based strate-
gies, direct work with children and play-
ground strategies. It was assessed using an
52 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
age cohort design. The project demon-
strated positive impact, but this varied
between schools, however, the project also
revealed a significant relationship between
the Input (effort and time) and the Output
(improvements; Whitney et al., 1994).
In 2011 Professor Salmivalli spoke about
KiVa at Cambridge University and the first
author then presented the programme at a
Welsh Government meeting for school
improvement officers. In July 2011 the Welsh
Government invited Directors of Education
to apply for a ‘Training in Behaviour Manage-
ment Grant’. This funding was provide for
training in ‘well evaluated’ approaches and
KiVa was included on the list.
The Welsh Pilot Trial
Methods
Fourteen Welsh schools were recruited from
across North and South Wales and three
schools from the county of Cheshire (on the
Welsh border) also signed up for training for
delivery in the 2012–13 school year. The
programme was offered to mainstream
primary school Years 5 (age 9 to 10 years)
and/or Year 6 (age 10 to 11 years) pupils.
This was because, at commencement of the
study, only Unit 2 (for children aged 9 to 11
years) of the KiVa programme had been
translated into English. This was the first
unit to be translated because, in the KiVa
trials in Finland, this was the age at which the
best results were obtained (Kärnä et al.,
2011a).
Professor Salmivalli and a colleague came
to Wales in May 2012 to train staff from the
17 schools. Training was delivered in both
North and South Wales. This was a one-day
training course with separate teaching
sessions for any class teachers who would be
delivering the lessons and for the personnel
who would be the KiVa team lead and take
responsibility for implementing the targeted
actions when bullying was identified.
A number of schools had recruited an educa-
tional psychologist to support the KiVa team.
The authors supported the programme
throughout the school year with telephone
and email contact and with termly meetings
for school representatives at three locations
across Wales. Support covered responses to
queries on the programme, implementation
and data collection. The meetings were also
used to gain feedback.
All school registration details were
processed through Bangor University and
funding from the training enabled the
appointment of a part-time KiVa admin-
strator. Training covered how to register and
launch KiVa in the school, how to set up and
undertake the pupil survey, introduction to
lesson content, materials and the KiVa rules
that are generated from the lessons and how
to access the various online resources
including the KiVa games. In the parallel
session KiVa team members were introduced
to the scripted process delineating how to
deal with confirmed bullying incidents.
A European funded Knowledge
Economy Skills Scholarship was obtained to
support evaluation of this pilot trial by the
second author in a partnership between
Bangor University and Early Intervention
Wales Training Ltd.
Measures and procedures
The pupil measure used in the evaluation was
pupil report on the annual KiVa online
internet-based survey. This incorporates two
global variables from the Revised Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus,
1996) that record whether pupils self-identify
as victims, non-victims, bullies or non-bullies.
The revised OBVQ has been used by
hundreds of researchers world-wide, includ-
ing in some large-scale studies (Currie et al.,
2012), to measure the prevalence of bullying
and victimisation. An analysis of this instru-
ment by Kyriakides et al. (2006) indicates
that it has satisfactory psychometric proper-
ties in terms of construct validity and relia-
bility
Pupils responded to the revised OBVQ
items on a five-point frequency scale
(1=’I have not been bullied during last
couple of months’, 2=’Once or twice in the
last couple of months’, 3=’2 or 3 times a
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 53
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK
month’, 4=’About once a week’, 5=’Several
times a week’. (A number of researchers
code from 0 to 4, rather than 1 to 5.) The
cut-off point, for identification of bully and
victim, were based on the recommendations
of Solberg and Olweus (2003) of two to three
times a month.
The independent variable was the KiVa
Programme, assessed as a within groups
factor at pre- and post-test. There were two
dependent variables, victimisation and
bullying. Pupil online self-report scores for
the global revised OBVQ items were
employed as the measure of victimisation
and bullying. The aggregated means for the
participating schools pre- and post-test for
both variables were compared for differ-
ences with a repeated measures t-test.
The pupil survey took approximately ten
minutes to complete. Teachers or classroom
assistants administered the survey. Staff
administering the survey were advised not to
move around the classroom whilst the survey
was being completed, so that pupils did not
feel pressurised to make particular
responses. Staff were also informed to group
children with low reading ability, so that they
could offer additional reading help where
required. Staff were requested to keep expla-
nations to a minimum, if pupils requested
information. Pupils were informed that all of
their responses were confidential. They
logged on to the survey with school-specific
user names and passwords. The time and
date of survey completion and the school’s
identity were automatically saved to the data
set when each pupil logged on. Pupils were
requested to provide their gender and year
group from alternatives offered on the
screen, followed by the OBVQ items. All of
the instructions for survey completion,
including the definition of bullying, were
supplied and items appeared on the pupil’s
computer screen. The term bullying was
defined prior to pupils completing the
survey.
The Revised Olweus’ Bully/Victim Ques-
tionnaire (OBVQ) definition was employed:
‘It is bullying when one or more children
deliberately and repeatedly make another child
feel bad. The bully usually has power over the
victim and the victim of bullying is usually
unable to defend himself or herself against the
bully. A child is being bullied when one or more
children say mean or unkind things about him
or her, make fun of him or her, or call him or
her mean and unkind names, completely
ignore him or her, leave him or her out of their
group of friends, or leave him or her outside on
purpose, hit, kick, push or order him or her
around or, for example, lock him or her in a
room try to make other children dislike him or
her by spreading lies about him or her, or by
sending mean notes or doing other unkind
things than the ones mentioned above. Also, it
is bullying when a child is teased repeatedly in
a mean and unkind way. Friendly and playful
teasing is not bullying. It is also not bullying
when children willingly argue or fight.’
A concise version of the definition was addi-
tionally supplied before each item to remind
the pupils of the definition of bullying within
this study and the components of the defini-
tion, the requirement of repetition, inten-
tion and power imbalance between the
victim and the bully.
Schools were asked to participate in the
study by allowing the aggregated OBVQ data
to be reported and all parents were
informed by letter and/or email of the
school’s decision to deliver the KiVa
programme as part of their Personal Social
Emotional (PSHE in England) curriculum.
The programme was mapped on to these
curricula and shown to cover over half of the
curriculum for the relevant age group.
Pupils and parents were informed that the
pupil survey data, the revised OVBQ, was
anonymous, and that full confidentiality was
guaranteed. The study was approved by
Bangor University, School of Psychology,
Research Ethics and Governance
Committee, to ensure that all the British
Psychological Society’s guidelines were
adhered to (Ethics code 2012_7522).
54 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
Owing to the late recruitment of some
schools the survey was completed at the
beginning of the 2012–2013 school year,
prior to implementation of the programme.
On the basis of the aims of the interven-
tion in terms of reducing victimisation and
bullying, and of the reductions in these
measures already reported in the Finnish
RCT, it was hypothesised that self-reported
measures of both victimisation and bullying
on the revised OBVQ would reduce from
pre-test to post-test.
Results
The programme was delivered in 17 schools,
14 from across Wales and three from
Cheshire. Four schools delivered the
programme to Year 5 pupils, eight to Year 6
pupils and five to pupils in Years 5 and 6. Key
Stage 2 pupil numbers ranged from 72 to
290 (M=138); 748 pupils received the
programme.
The online annual pupil survey that is
part of the KiVa programme is anonymous
and only linkable to school and year group.
As this was an opportunistic and small-scale
pilot study undertaken after schools had
registered with KiVa Finland it was not
possible to link individual pupil pre- and
post-test data. For the purposes of pre- to
post-test analyses, only the 13 schools that
provided adequate pre-test and post-test
measurements were included in the final
sample. Four schools were excluded: two did
not provide post-test data and two others
provided post-test data for only 50 per cent
and 10 per cent of pupils respectively. The
pre-test response from the 13 schools was
473 and the post-test response was 472,
representing 82 per cent of the pupils in the
intervention classes.
Table 1 shows the total percentage of
victims and bullies for each of the 13 schools
at pre-test and post-test, and Table 2 shows
these figures broken down by gender.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 55
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK
Table 1: Victimisation and bullying on the Revised OBVQ (percentage by school).
School Pre-test (N=473) Post-test (N=472)
code Victim Bully Victim Bully
1 20 533
2 35 16 18 3
38000
48480
5416 80
68404
7259134
88700
9 22 10 35
11 31 19 80
12 17 18 60
13 6 10 00
15 11 14 11 2
56 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
Table 2: Victimisation and bullying by gender on the Revised OBVQ
(percentage by school).
School Girls Boys
code Pre-test (N=228) Post-test (N=225) Pre-test (N=245) Post-test (N=247)
Victim Bully Victim Bully Victim Bully Victim Bully
12504316 933
2 41 17 23 4 25 14 80
3 11 0005000
4 11 11 006012 0
5823 800838 0
6 11 0006505
7 22 22 0027 0 20 7
888008700
91480033 12 7 12
11 50 27 14 08900
12 18 22 7017 14 60
13 13 600014 00
15 11 14 11 0 12 15 12 4
A comparison of pre-/post-test results for
the total sample showed significant reduc-
tions both in victimisation (t[12]=2.147,
p[one-tailed]=0.027) and in bullying
(t[12]=2.791, p[one-tailed]=0.008). Simi-
larly, a comparison of pre-/post-test results
broken down by gender showed significant
reductions for girls both in victimisation
(t[12]=1.951, p[one-tailed]=0.038) and in
bullying (t[12]=2.540, p[one-tailed]=0.013).
For boys, a significant reduction was
found for bullying (t[12]=1.837, p[one-
tailed]=0.046) but not for victimisation
(t[12]=1.417, p[one-tailed]=0.046). Teachers
reported on the experience of delivering the
programme in an online survey. Delivery of
the lessons was reported to be ‘Easy’ by 73.3
per cent of respondents and they rated 75 to
100 per cent of pupils as engaged with, and
enthusiastic about, the lessons. The suit-
ability of lessons for reducing bullying was
rated by teachers on a five-point scale:
1=Extremely unsuitable to 5=Extremely suit-
able. The mean response of 4.47 indicated
that lessons were deemed very suitable for
the purpose of reducing bullying. Teachers
also gave very positive feedback about the
level of discussion generated by the
programme lessons and reported that pupils
who were not so forthcoming in other
lessons enjoyed contributing in KiVa lessons.
A recent ‘Action on Bullying’ report by
the Welsh school inspection service, ESTYN
(Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education
and Training in Wales, 2014), includes a case
study on Marlborough School, Cardiff, one
of the Welsh KiVa schools, as an example of
good practice in addressing bullying
(pp.19–20).
Discussion
It is clear that there is a need to support
schools to address bullying in both Wales
and the rest of the UK. Effective interven-
tions draw on psychological research into
the nature of bullying and teachers need
these tools to do this effectively. The UK is
currently in the situation that Finland was
prior to the Finnish Government funding
the development and evaluation of KiVa.
Our schools are required to address bullying
but have not been given tools that have
demonstrated effectiveness to achieve this.
To date no RCTs of anti-bullying pro-
grammes have been completed in the UK
and only a limited number of RCTs on an
international basis with minimal success.
According to the Ttofi and Farrington review
(2011) only one of the nine randomised
experiments (Fonagy et al., 2009) found a
significant effect of the programme on
bullying, although one other evaluation
(Hunt 2007) reported a near-significant
effect. Overall, the nine randomised experi-
ments yielded a weighted mean OR of 1.10,
indicating a non-significant effect of these
programmes on bullying. KiVa was selected
for the trial in Wales owing to its strong
evidence in the many trials by the pro-
gramme developers from both a large-scale
RCT and evaluation of the broader roll out
of the programme across Finland.
There are a number of limitations to the
study. Firstly, due to its opportunistic nature,
the design was limited and lacked a control
condition making a cause-effect conclusion
tentative. However, there are no funda-
mental reasons to expect that bullying levels
would have reduced over the period of the
study in this age group, so the intervention is
likely to have contributed to the reported
reductions.
Secondly, the study reports only on the
subjective experience of bullying. However,
subjectivity is important in its own right, as in
some circumstances, bullying behaviour may
be so subtle that only the victim is aware of it
(Huitsing et al., 2010). Self-report question-
naires are the most widely used method of
assessing the prevalence of bullying and peer
victimisation, as they yield information effi-
ciently and with minimal cost (time and
financial), when compared with other inde-
pendent measures where evidence can be
difficult to obtain and costly.
Thirdly, as the pupil survey data were not
matched it prevented analysis at pupil and
class level that could have contributed to
greater understanding of the effects of the
programme. Future studies should aim to
match data so that a multi-level modelling
analysis can be used, such as hierarchical
linear modelling, whereby units within other
units are analysed (Bryk & Raudenbush,
1992). Schools are an excellent fit for the
nesting criteria (school, class, pupil) and this
would clarify where, and for whom, any
benefits primarily accrue.
Fourthly, this study reports data collected
over one academic year. For a more compre-
hensive understanding of bullying and to
measure the effectiveness of interventions,
longer-term follow-up is needed, ideally over
a three-year period (Ryan & Smith, 2009).
In this first pilot trial of KiVa Unit 2 in the
UK significant reductions were reported in
the anonymous pupil self-report survey of
both bullying and victimisation. Teachers
also reported the acceptability of the mate-
rials from both their own and their pupils’
standpoints indicating the acceptability of
the programme. The tentative findings of
this pilot trial justify further more rigorous
evaluation of KiVa to establish the short-term
effectiveness and any possible longer-term
benefits of the programme.
The positive findings during this first
pilot trial year contributed to a decision to
seek and obtain funding from the BIG
Lottery innovation fund for Wales for a small
RCT of the KiVa programme. This is being
undertaken by a partnership between the
Dartington Social Research Unit and Bangor
University. In the meantime the translation
into English of Unit 1 had been completed
and this has enabled the RCT to target all
Key Stage 2 pupils, Years 3 to 6 in the schools
that were recruited. Twenty-two schools from
across Wales were recruited and randomly
allocated to intervention in 2013–2014 or a
wait list control condition commencing in
2014–2015 (Axford et al., 2014).
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 57
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK
The successful pilot data raise the issue of
dissemination and how to provide support for
effective roll out of the programme. First, a
KiVa school lead needs to be trained and
supported to take charge of the project within
the school to launch the KiVa programme
and ensure that teachers and all school staff
are trained and resourced to deliver the
universal aspects of the programme effec-
tively. This person needs to ensure that
parents are informed, that KiVa posters are
displayed and that KiVa vests are worn by play-
ground supervisors. Second, training is
needed in terms of the administration of the
online KiVa pupil survey and access to online
resources for teachers, parents and children.
This requires back-up support and was
provided in the pilot trial by the authors, both
psychologists. Third, KiVa team members
require training in the strategies to address
confirmed incidents of bullying.
As with any evidence-based programme
the challenge is to implement it with fidelity
in everyday service settings in order to ensure
that results from RCTs are replicated. To do
this requires a system that can support groups
of schools in a locality. In the Welsh trials with
small numbers this has been achieved
through support directly from Finland and
subsequently from the Bangor team.
However, for KiVa to achieve widescale roll
out, creating the possibility of further evalua-
tion in the UK, local trainers need to be iden-
tified and trained to support the schools in
their area. In Powys, a rural county in Wales,
this has been done by resourcing an educa-
tional psychologist to train and support
school staff. The goal now is to identify and
train local staff with a remit to support schools
in their locality. Training for trainers is now
available at Bangor University in the UK and
this is a very suitable role for educational and
other applied psychologists whose work
increasingly involves working with whole
school populations in achieving school-wide
benefits.
Address for correspondence
Dr Judy Hutchings
Professor of Clinical Psychology,
Director, Centre for Evidence Based
Early Intervention,
School of Psychology,
College of Health and Behavioural
Sciences,
Nantlle Building, Normal Site,
Bangor University,
Gwynedd, LL57 2PX.
Email: j.hutchings@bangor.ac.uk.
58 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
Arsenio, W.F., Cooperman, S. & Lover, A. (2000).
Affective predictors of preschoolers’ aggression
and peer acceptance: Direct and indirect effects.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 438–448.
Axford, N., Hutchings, J., Bjornstad, G., Clarkson, S.
& Hunt, A. (2014). KiVa: Helping schools and
parents beat bullying. Better Evidence-based Educa-
tion, 6(2), 14–15.
Barboza, G.E., Schiamberg, L.B., Oehmke, J., Korze-
niewski, S.J., Post, L.A. & Heraux, C.G. (2009).
Individual characteristics and the multiple
contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological
perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38,
101–121.
Björkqvist, K. Lagerspetz, K.M.J. & Kaukiainen, A.
(1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight?
Developmental trends in regard to direct and
indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18,
117–127.
Bond, L., Carlin, J.B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K. &
Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional
problems? A prospective study of young
teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480–484.
Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical
linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A. & Currie, D.
(2012). Social determinants of health and well-being
among young people. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organisation.
Denham, S.A. (2006). Social-emotional competence
as support for school readiness: What is it and
how do we assess it? Early Education and Develop-
ment, 17(1), 57–89.
Egan, S.K. & Perry, D.G. (1998). Does low self-regard
invite victimisation? Developmental Psychology, 34,
299–309.
Elliot, D.S. (1999). Blueprints for Violence Prevention.
(I. of B.S. Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence, Ed.). Boulder, CO: University of
Colorado.
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Merita, Y., O’Moore, M.,
Mora-Merchan, J.A. & Pereira, B. (2003). Friend-
ship and loneliness among bullies and victims:
Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30,
71–83.
Estyn (2014). Action on bullying: A review of the effective-
ness of action taken by schools to address bullying on the
grounds of pupils’ protected characteristics. Estyn:
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education and
Training in Wales.
Farrington, D. (1993). Understanding and
preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and
Justice: A review of research (pp.381–458). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F.I.M. & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P.
(2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and
where? Involvement of children, teachers and
parents in bullying behavior. Health Education
Research, 20(1), 81–91.
Hanish, L.D., Ryan, P., Martin, C.L. & Fabes, R.A.
(2005). The social context of young children’s
peer victimisation. Social Development, 14(1),
2–19.
Huitsing, G., Veenstra, R., van Duijn, M.A.J., Sanio,
M. & Salmivalli, C. (2010). By whom are you
bullied? Dyadic nominations identify ‘invisible’
bullying. Poster presented at Biennal Meeting for
the Society for Research on Adolescence,
Philadelphia.
Jeffrey, L.R., Miller, D. & Linn, M. (2001). Middle
school bullying as a context for the development
of passive observers to the victimisation of others.
Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 143–156.
Juvonen, J. & Graham, S. (2001). Peer harassment in
school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimised.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T.D., Poskiparta, E.,
Kaljonen, A. & Salmivalli, C. (2011a). A large-
scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying
program: Grades 4–6. Child Development, 82(1),
311–30.
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T.D., Poskiparta, E.,
Alanen, E., Salmivalli, C. & Ka, A. (2011b). Going
to scale: A non-randomised nationwide trial of
the KiVa anti-bullying program for grades 1–9.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(6),
796–805.
Kim, Y.S., Koh, Y.J. & Leventhal, B.L. (2005). School
bullying and suicidal risk in Korean middle
school students. Pediatrics, 115(2), 357–363.
Kochenderfer, B.J. & Ladd, G.W. (1997). Victimised
children’s responses to peers’ aggression: Behav-
iors associated with reduced versus continued
victimisation. Developmental and Psychopathology,
9(1), 59–73.
Kochender fer-Ladd B. (2004) Peer victimisation:
The role of emotions in adaptive and maladap-
tive coping. Social Development, 13(3), 329–249.
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C. & Lindsay, G. (2006).
An analysis of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement
model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
781–801.
Low, S., Smith, B.H., Brown, E.C., Fernandez, K.,
Hanson, K. & Haggerty, K.P. (2011). Design and
analysis of a randomised controlled trial of steps
to resect: A school-based bullying prevention
program. In S.M. Espelage & E.L. Swearer (Eds.),
Bullying in North American schools (pp.278–290).
New York: Routledge.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 59
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK
References
Mellor, A. (1999). Scotland. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita,
J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee
(Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp.91–111).
London: Routledge.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B. & Cowie, H.
(2003). Enhancing children’s responsibility to
take action against bullying: Evaluation of a
befriending intervention in Italian middle
schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29(1), 1–14.
Merrell, K.W., Gueldner, B.A., Ross, S.W. & Isava,
D.M. (2008). How effective are school bullying
intervention programs? A meta-analysis of inter-
vention research. School Psychology Quarterly,
23(1), 26–42.
Newman, R.S. & Murray, B.J. (2005). How students
and teachers view the seriousness of peer harass-
ment: When is it appropriate to seek help?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 347–365.
Nishina, A. (2004). A theoretical review of bullying:
Can it be eliminated. In C.E. Sanders & G.D.
Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom.
(pp.35–62). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Olweus, D. (1973). Hackkycklingar och oversittare.
Forskning om skolmobbing (Victims and bullies:
Research on school bullying). Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wicksell.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and
whipping boys. London: Wiley.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among
school children: Some basic facts and effects of a
school-based intervention program. In K. Pepler
& D. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of
childhood aggression (pp.411–448). Hillside, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993a). Bully/victim problems among
school children: Long-term consequences and
an effective intervention program. In S. Hodgins
(Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp.317–349).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1993b). Bullying at school: What we know
and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in schools.
Prospects, 26, 331–359.
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical
analysis and some important issues. Peer harass-
ment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimised, 3–20.
Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and
effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program. Pschology, Crime & Law [Special issue:
Working with aggression and violence: Assessment,
prevention and treatment], 11, 389–402.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching
bullying some critical issues. In Handbook of
bullying in schools: An international perspective
(pp.9–33).
Olweus, D. (2011). Bullying at school and later crim-
inality: Findings from three Swedish community
samples of males. Criminal Behavior and Mental
Health, 21(2), 151–156.
Olweus, D., Limber, S. & Mihalic, S.F. (1999).
Bullying prevention program. Blueprints for
Violence Prevention book nine. In D.S. Elliott
(Ed.), Center for the Study and Prevention of violence,
Institute of Behavioural Science, University of
Colorado. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teacher
training to counter bullying and victimisation in
Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26(26), 99–111.
Pellegrini, A.D. (2002). Bullying, victimisation, and
sexual harassment during the transition to
middle school. Educational Psychology, 37(3),
151–164.
Peter, T., Roberts, L.W. & Buzdugan, R. (2008).
Suicidal ideation among Canadian Youth:
A multivariate analysis. Archives of Suicide Research,
263–275.
Reid, P., Monsen, J. & Rivers, I. (2004). Psychology’s
contribution to understanding and managing
bullying within schools. Educational Psychology in
Practice: Theor y, research and practice in educational
psychology, 20(3), 241–258.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools. London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the
health of secondary school students British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 95–104.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Rigby, K. & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adoles-
cent students collaborating with teachers in
addressing issues of bullying and conflict in
sschools. Educational Psychology, 23, 535–546.
Rivers, I. & Smith, P.K. (1994). Types of bullying
behavior and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior,
20(5), 359–368.
Ryan, W. & Smith, J.D. (2009). Anti-bullying
programs in schools: How effective are evalua-
tion practices? Prevention Science: The official
Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 10(3),
248–259.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world
learn from educational change in Finland? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group:
A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2),
112–120.
Salmivalli, C, Kaukiainen, A. & Voeten, M. (2005).
Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and
outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
75, 465–487.
60 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1
Judy Hutchings & Susan Clarkson
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Voeten, M. &
Sinisammal, M. (2004). Targeting the group as a
whole: The Finnish anti-bullying intervention.
In P.K. Smith, D.J. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.),
Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions
be? (pp.251–273). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K.,
Osterman, K. & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying
as a group process: Participant roles and their
relations to social status within the group. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 22, 1–15.
Salmivalli, C, Garandeau, C.F. & Veenstra, R. (2012).
KiVa anti-bullying program: Implications for
school adjustment. In A.M. Ryan & G.W. Ladd
(Eds.), Peer relationships and adjustment at school
(p.279). USA: Information Age Publishing Incor-
porated.
Smith, P., Pepler, D. & Rigby, K. (2004). Preface.
In P.K. Smith, D.J. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.),
Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions
be? (pp.xvii–xviii). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, P.K, Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S.,
Russell, S. & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying:
Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils.
The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, 49, 376–385.
Society for Prevention Research (2004). Standards of
evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissem-
ination. Available at:
www.preventionresearch.org
Solberg, M.E. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence esti-
mation of school bullying with the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior,
29, 239–268.
Stassen Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at
school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review,
27(1), 90–126.
Ttofi, M.M. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies
tend to become depressed in later life? A system-
atic review and meta-analysis of longitudal
studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace
Research, 3(2), 63–73.
Ttofi, M.M. & Farrington, D.P. (2011). Effectiveness
of school-based programs to reduce bullying:
A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.
Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., Losel, F. & Loeber, R.
(2011). The predictive efficiency of school
bullying versus later offending: A systematic/
meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies.
Criminal Behavior and Mental Health: 21(2) 80–89.
Vreeman, R.C. & Carroll, A.E. (2007). A systematic
review of school-based interventions to prevent
bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medi-
cine, 161(1), 78–88.
Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (1994).
The Sheffield Project methodology and findings.
In P.K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying:
Insights and perspectives (pp.20–56). London:
Routledge.
Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T.D.,
Karna, A. & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effects of the
KiVa anti-bullying program on adolescents’
depression, anxiety, and perception of peers.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 289–300.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 1 61
Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK
