Content uploaded by Jolita Vveinhardt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jolita Vveinhardt on Jan 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
414
Vveinhardt, J., Fominiene, V.B., Jeseviciute-Ufartiene, L. (2019),
“Methodological and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire
for the diagnosis of bullying and harassment in sport: statistical
verification”, Transformations in Business & Economics, Vol. 18, No
3C (48C), pp.414-430.
METHODOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOMETRIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE
DIAGNOSIS OF BULLYING AND HARASSMENT IN SPORT:
STATISTICAL VERIFICATION
1
1Jolita Vveinhardt
Institute of Sport Science and
Innovations
Lithuanian Sports University
Sporto Str. 6,
LT-44221 Kaunas
Lithuania
Tel.: +370 698 06668
E-mail: j.vveinhardt@gmail.com
2Vilija Bite Fominiene
Department of Sport and
Tourism Management
Lithuanian Sports University
Perkūno ave. 3a,
Kaunas
Lithuania
Tel.: +370 37 302662
E-mail: vilija.fominiene@lsu.lt
3Laima Jeseviciute-
Ufartiene
Lithuanian Sports University
Perkūno ave. 3a,
Kaunas
Lithuania
Tel.: +370 37 302662
E-mail: laima1981@yahoo.com
1Jolita Vveinhardt, PhD, professor at the Department of Sport
and Tourism Management of Lithuanian Sports University
(Lithuania); chief researcher at the Institute of Sport Science
and Innovations of Lithuanian Sports University. The scientist
is heading three scientific groups: “Neuro-Relationships”
(Lithuanian Sports University (LSU)), “Managerial Solutions
to Violence in Sport” (Lithuanian Sports University), “The
Group of Interdisciplinary Research on Working Environment”
(Vytautas Magnus University (VMU)). She successfully
supervised and implemented three scientific research projects,
currently she is the head of an international scientific research
project funded by the European Social Fund according to the
activity ‘Improvement of researchers’ qualification by
implementing world-class R&D projects of Measure No.
09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0190. Jolita Vveinhardt is the author
and co-author of three monographs, two science studies, one
textbook, and five educational books. She has published more
than 200 scientific articles, 90 of which were published in peer
reviewed journals of Web of Science Core Collection
(Clarivate Analytics) database and read more than 50 papers in
national
1
Acknowledgement. This research is funded by the European Social Fund according to the activity ‘Improvement of
researchers’ qualification by implementing world-class R&D projects of Measure No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0190’.
---------TRANSFORMATIONS IN --------
BUSINESS & ECONOMICS
© Vilnius University, 2002-2019
© Brno University of Technology, 2002-2019
© University of Latvia, 2002-2019
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
415
and international scientific conferences. She is a member of
editorial boards of 14 scientific periodicals. Prof. Dr. Jolita
Vveinhardt is a member of 15 associations and societies. She
teaches the following subjects for Master’s degree programme
students: Contemporary Organization Theories (VMU) and
Novelties of Management Science (LSU). Her main research
interests are destructive relationships among employees
(mobbing, bullying, nepotism, favouritism, social loafing,
social ostracism, organizational cynicism, cronyism,
protectionism), business ethics, organizational culture,
management culture, organizational climate, personal and
organizational values, value congruence, corporate social
responsibility, decision-making, neuromanagement, etc. Her
publications have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics,
E&M Economics and Management, Journal of Business
Economics and Management, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, and among others.
2Vilija Bite Fominiene, PhD, associate professor at the
Department of Sport and Tourism Management, Lithuanian
Sports University (Lithuania). She is author and co-author of
over 50 scientific publications in peer-reviewed national and
international scientific journals and has experience as principal
investigator in projects. Currently she is the researcher of an
international scientific research project funded by the European
Social Fund according to the activity ‘Improvement of
researchers’ qualification by implementing world-class R&D
projects of Measure No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0190. Her
research interests are human resources and their management
in sport/leisure industry organizations, career satisfaction,
social interaction and behavior of employees and sports
participants.
3Laima Jeseviciute-Ufartiene, PhD, is a scientific group
member at scientific research project funded by the European
Social Fund according to the activity ‘Improvement of
researchers’ qualification by implementing world-class R&D
projects of Measure No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0190 at the
Department of Sport and Tourism Management, Lithuanian
Sports University (Lithuania). Her scientific research field is
analyzation of how people (leader, manager, employee, and
customer) perceive an environment and how they behave
reacting to it with the purpose to manage and develop
organization. She published four articles cited in web of
science data bases and was also a project manager of the
research project “Customer preferences doing online shopping
using PL, LV and LT cases” in Kauno Kolegija University of
Applied Science. She cooperated with Rezekne Academy of
Technologies (Latvia) and Bialystok University of Technology
(Poland).
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
416
Received: April, 2019
1st Revision: May, 2019
2nd Revision: June, 2019
Accepted: September, 2019
ABSTRACT
. Alongside with the review of the research on
interpersonal relationships in organized sport, the article also
reveals various problems pertaining to destructive
interrelationships between athletes and between coaches and
athletes, manifesting themselves as bullying and harassment and
posing a threat to ensuring safe sport. Simultaneously, the relation
of this phenomenon with other manifestations of destructive
behaviour – aggression and antisocial behaviour – is also
discussed. In order to prevent the spread and development of
destructive phenomena in sport, continuous research must be
carried out, the results of which would enable to make timely
preventive and interventional decisions. However, a conceptual
instrument which would encompass all the above-mentioned
behaviour manifestations that enable to capture or predict the
formation of sport bullying and harassment is missing. Therefore,
seeking to fill the gap in this area, the research aim is to present a
new questionnaire for diagnosing bullying and harassment in
sport, detailing the logic of drawing up the questionnaire and
providing psychometric characteristics.
The article exhaustively presents the logic of drawing up the new
instrument and the course of adaptation of original scales and
integration of new scales into the questionnaire, encompassing ten
stages. As a final result of this study, the psychometric
characteristics of the new questionnaire Bullying and Harassment
in Sport Questionnaire (BHISQ) are presented. It is expected that
such instrument will enable to diagnose bullying and harassment in
sport settings as reliably as possible and will contribute to the
development and implementation of anti-bullying policies.
Trends in further research: it is planned to conduct surveys
employing the presented questionnaire in a larger sample and in
the cases of several countries.
KEYWORDS
: scales, questionnaire, diagnostics, expert
evaluation, anti-social behaviour, bullying, harassment, destructive
interpersonal relationships.
JEL classification
: L83, M10, C40.
Introduction
Relevance of the research. Analysing sport industry, organized sport is considered to
be one of the most important contexts that can provide a person with physical, social,
emotional, cognitive benefits and allow the public to fight against immobility, obesity, various
diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases) or even exclusion of its members. Regularity of
the physical activity in a safe environment is indicated as one of the main advantages of such
form of sport compared to non-organised sport (Malina, 2009). This means that it is necessary
“...to protect the health of participants and to minimize the risk of physical injury and
psychological harm” (Olympic Movement MEDICAL Code, 2009). However, as sport is a
mirror of the society, it remains that place where assurance of the safe environment faces
various challenges (Fasting, 2017). The pursuit of a reward, the wish to win, and the pressure
from the environment create such conditions in which real possibilities to harm sports values
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
417
and cause both physical and psychological harm to the athlete emerge, and this is particularly
relevant speaking about youth sport.
This is confirmed by a number of studies stating that the athlete often faces various
problems resulting from both sport-related injuries (Hespanhol et al., 2016) and destructive
interrelationships (Gentile et al., 2018; e Silva et al., 2016). The latter are mentioned in many
studies, naming such problems of interpersonal relationships as antisocial behaviour of sports
participants (Jones et al., 2017), aggressiveness against others (Traclet et al., 2011), bullying,
harassment or abuse (Vveinhardt et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2016; Mountjoy et al., 2016; etc.).
In the long run, these problems determine exclusion of persons involved in them,
psychosocial well-being that determines both the quality of life and well-being. Hence, social
sport outcomes largely also depend on the quality of relationships formed in the context of
sport. In recent years, discussing relationship quality issues, it has begun to emphasize
bullying as well as harassment as a growing problem in sport and performance settings
(Fisher, Dzikus, 2017; Mountjoy et al., 2016). However, there is not much research on this
phenomena within sport participation. Scientists analyzing bullying and harassment usually
employ self-report assessment instruments and explore its manifestation and spread locally
(Vveinhardt et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2016; etc.). There is also a tendency to use various
instruments for these studies, mostly intended for identification of bullying in the school
context, and other manifestations of behaviour, related to this phenomenon, leading to
relationships where harm could occur, such as antisocial behaviour, aggression or
aggressiveness, are also not considered. Although the phenomena mentioned in theoretical
insights are closely linked (Fisher, Dzikus, 2017; Sterling, Kerr, 2016; Sinkkonen et al., 2014;
etc.), however, in the studies dealing with the sport context these behavioural manifestations
are analysed either separately or combining aggressiveness with antisocial behaviour. It is also
acknowledged that sport is dominated by specific bullying behaviour manifesting itself in
various types and levels (Kentel, McHugh, 2015). According to Stefaniuk, Bridel (2018),
beyond important academic literature on abuse in athlete-coach relationships, however, there
is little research on peer-to-peer bullying in sport. Therefore, it can be stated that the absence
of the conceptual instrument aggravates the work of researchers analyzing sport bullying
behaviour, leaving bullying and harassment in sport difficult to recognize. In order to fill the
gap in this area, it is necessary to develop the instrument covering all the constituents of the
problem of bullying and harassment in sport and capable of reliably diagnosing bullying and
harassment in sport. Such diagnostics is also necessary for the development and
implementation of anti-bullying policies. Analysing anti-bullying policies in Canadian sport,
Stefaniuk, Bridel (2018) retrieved a total of 118 documents, consisting of various codes of
conduct and harassment policies, from which only three had been produced that addressed
peer-to-peer bullying specifically. In the remaining 115 documents, bullying was mentioned
just 19 times and only defined in five documents. The absence of specific policy and policy
statement addressing peer-to-peer bullying is important to highlight. Well-written and
implemented policies are needed in order to help create safer spaces in sport for children and
youth. Based on the results of the study, we can assume that a similar situation may exist in
Lithuania too. Thus, diagnostic studies on bullying and harassment and programs created and
implemented on the basis of them will help to more effectively ensure athletes’ rights to act in
“safe sport”. The provided arguments presuppose the aim of the research: to present a new
questionnaire for diagnosing bullying and harassment in sport, detailing the logic of drawing
up the questionnaire and providing psychometric characteristics.
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
418
Research tasks: (1) to theoretically substantiate the logic of drawing up the
questionnaire; (2) to methodologically ground the logic of drawing up the questionnaire; (3)
to provide the psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire.
Methods of the research: The theoretical part is prepared using the method of
scientific literature analysis. In the empirical part, descriptive statistics is used to describe the
data of the research. Based on the results of the survey conducted, Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient values, Spearman-Brown coefficient values were calculated for scales and sub-
scales of the questionnaire, the explained factor dispersion, factor minimum weight (min),
item total correlation (r/itt) mean (mean) were calculated. Spearman’s correlation coefficient
was calculated in order to determine the intercorrelations.
1. Theoretical Review
Seeking the safest possible environment in sport, it is necessary to eliminate both
various physical injuries and the phenomena related to the psychosocial safety of athletes. The
latter are often associated with interpersonal relationships in sporting activities, which are
discussed increasingly often focusing on problems caused by bullying and harassment
phenomena in sport (Fisher, Dzikus, 2017; Vveinhardt et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2016; Volk,
Lagzdins, 2009; etc.). However, in this context, there is not much research compared to the
great frequency in school-based literature, and the vast majority of the research also covers
only the analysis of the bullying phenomenon.
The phenomenon of bullying itself is not new. Based on various sources, incidents
resembling bullying were recorded as early as before 1885 (Koo, 2007). However, in the
1970s, the scientific research on this topic was begun. Although the phenomenon has been
investigated for over 40 years, the discussions on how best to define bullying still remain
relevant. In academic literature, traditionally bullying is defined “…as repeated inhumane
actions directed at target individuals, who are disadvantaged or less powerful than those who
repeatedly harass or attack them” (Thornberg, 2015, p.162). The term bullying is quite often
alternately used with the concept harassment (Patchin, Hinduja, 2015), which is understood
“as a subset of bullying behaviour because it only includes victims who fall into certain
protected categories...” (Cornell, Limber, 2015, p.339). Therefore, analysing these phenomena
and their spread, it becomes purposeful to use the concepts bullying and harassment and treat
this as unwanted aggressive behaviour that inflicts harm or distress, provided such behaviour
is repeated more than once or is likely to recur in the context of an observed or perceived
power differential (Patchin, Hinduja, 2015).
Also, analysing bullying and harassment, it must be borne in mind that these
phenomena can also be considered as a specific kind of aggression; i.e., intentional kind of
aggression, in which individuals often and for a longer time span behave aggressively with
other persons (Zych et al., 2017). Analysing such unwanted behaviour, it is important to pay
attention to the fact that it can take many forms, from direct physical harm (physical bullying)
to verbal taunts and threats (verbal bullying) and to exclusion, humiliation, and rumour-
spreading (relational or social bullying), which closely intertwine with the forms of
aggression distinguished in literature, considering the form of its manifestation (Orpinas et al.,
2015). Analysing bullying as manifestation of the person’s aggression, it is also important to
draw attention to the fact that such behaviour can be also named as antisocial behaviour
(Sutton et al., 1999) and analysed from the perspective of covert antisocial behaviour (Frick et
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
419
al., 1993). In other words, bullying and harassment as well as other externalizing behaviours
correlate with each other (Ttofi et al., 2016).
A number of performed meta-analyses and systematic reviews of bullying and
harassment issues confirm the harmfulness of this phenomenon by presenting various
physical, emotional and psychosocial, health and well-being or academic problems and reveal
poorer life outcomes in further stages of life of persons involved in such behaviour (Strout et
al., 2018). Quite a large share of research also discloses the prevalence of this phenomenon in
various contexts, sometimes reaching as much as 50 percent of the population (Molcho et al.,
2009). The results of the study conducted by Craig et al. (2009) in 40 countries demonstrate
that the exposure to bullying varied across countries, with estimates ranging from 8.6% to
45.2% among boys, and from 4.8% to 35.8% among girls. Adolescents in Baltic countries
reported higher rates of bullying and victimization, whereas northern European countries
reported the lowest prevalence. Craig’s et al. (2009) research results promote to pay more
attention to bullying in Baltic countries. Although the amount of research into various aspects
of bullying and harassment in various contexts is only increasing, the assessment of this
phenomenon is still fraught with various challenges. Most often, this is related to the fact that
the science of bullying measurement is insufficiently developed. Research employs
instruments that are at different stages of development and are not psychometrically
defensible as well as not well-aligned with their original intent (Strout et al., 2018). Besides,
discussions still take place whether while assessing bullying and harassment it is important to
present their definitions to respondents, what kind of questionnaire survey it is most
purposeful to conduct; i.e., use a paper or electronic form of the questionnaire; there is also no
unambiguous answer to the question about the most appropriate time frames used for
assessment of severity of bullying and harassment impact and discussions take place about the
disclosure and importance of roles (Strout et al., 2018).
Scientists analysing bullying and harassment in the sport context also encounter
similar problems, while the choice of the research instrument in the context of sport becomes
even a bigger challenge. The reason for this is, on one hand, still quite rare research on
bullying within sport participation (Evans et al., 2016) and, on the other hand, not fully
understood phenomenon of bullying and harassment in sport (Mendez-Baldwin et al., 2017).
The already conducted quantitative studies employ both originally developed instruments
(Vveinhardt et al., 2017; Dane-Staples et al., 2013) and questionnaires in which items from
existing tools for assessing school bullying (Evans et al., 2016; Volk, Lagzdings, 2009) are
adapted. However, theoretically disclosing the complexity of the bullying phenomenon and
treating it as a specific pattern of antisocial behaviour or / and act of interpersonal aggression
(Fisher, Dzikus, 2017; Evans et al., 2016), research does not disclose the link between these
phenomena. Although it is evident that identification of aggression in sport, manifesting itself
by the person’s aggressiveness or anger, or disclosed demonstrated covert antisocial
behaviour in sport can show both the rudiments of bullying or harassment and rooted
problems.
All this leads to a lack of knowledge related to the bullying and harassment
phenomenon in sport, also aggravating the development of preventive and interventional
measures. As long as there are no sufficient research-based proofs of the importance of the
role of risk factors, associated consequences, prevalence and dynamics of bullying and until
no overall instrument, adapted to a concrete context, helping to systematically identify and
record bullying in sport, is developed, experience of other sectors, such as education will be
followed and there will be no possibilities to target prevention work more cost-effectively
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
420
(Brackenridge et al., 2005). This will also be determined by the situation where society will
know little about the prevalence of bullying and harassment in sport, will find it difficult to
recognize them and at the same time will not initiate their reduction or elimination in the sport
context.
2. Methodology of the Research
Instrument development. The formation of the instrument involved ten conditional
stages. In the first stage of the questionnaire preparation, there were selected original scales
and gained the authors’ agreements for their adaptation in the Lithuanian language. The
following scales were chosen for their adaptation: Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviour in
Sport Scale (PABSS) (Kavussanu, Boardley, 2009), Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger
Scale (CAAS) (Maxwell, Moores, 2007), Illinois Bully Scale (IBS) (Espelage, Holt, 2001).
The items of the questionnaire Mobbing and Single Cases of Harassment in Employees’
Relations (MSCH) (Vveinhardt, Streimikiene, 2015) were included to the newly formed
instrument also. However, these items did not require the 1st expert evaluation as the
questionnaire was prepared in the Lithuanian and English languages.
The completion logic of the selected questionnaires determined the inclusion of
original scales or their subscales into the formation of the following instrument. The following
demonstrates the researched athletes behavioural relation to bullying behaviour (for example,
PABSS questionnaire composers focus on the overt behaviour and inhibitive morality,
aggressive forms of negative social behaviour; CAAS questionnaire composers highlight the
person’s, involved in sport, correlation between anger and aggressiveness and unsanctioned
aggression) and the evidence of scale credibility and validity that was delivered after having
conducted studies in different contexts, related to sports, such as a different field, different
sports forms and different cultural contexts (Hodge, Lonsdale, 2011; Balcikanli, 2013;
Maxwell, Moores, 2007). Illinois Bully Scale (IBS) selection was determined by both its wide
application in the scientific literature, measuring teenagers’ and youth’s behaviour, related to
bullying and this scale’s convergent validity with aggression as well as antisocial behaviour
(Shujja, Atta, 2011).
In the second stage two independent and not knowing each other translators, translated
scales from the English into the Lithuanian language.
In the third stage a synthesis of two translations was conducted.
In the fourth stage the 1st expert assessment was conducted of the translation synthesis
five experts participated in this assessment. The experts were selected following these criteria:
scientific PhD degree (conferred not earlier than 3 years ago); scientific field and direction
that the dissertation was defended in; the fields of scientific interests that are grounded on the
scientific publication basis of three latter years. While analysing the experts’ scientific
publications significant attention was paid to such revealed components as sports, physical
activity, emotions and behaviour, bullying, responsibility, process development, etc. The
exception was made for one expert, who does not have a scientific PhD degree; however, he is
a linguistic editor and has a 21-year experience in the edition of scientific and methodical
works in the fields of sport pedagogy, psychology and management. The aim of this expert
work was to assess the conformity of the translation synthesis of three adapted scales’ titles
and items with the original.
The specific forms were prepared for the experts, where there introduced original scale
titles and items, two separate translators’ translations and the version of synthesis. Assessing
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
421
the quality level of items translations, the experts had to mark each item with a score, where 1
- means that the item does not reflect original at all, and 5 – the item completely conforms to
the original version. Having gained the experts’ assessments, there were derived the average
of all experts’ scores.
In the fifth stage of the questionnaire preparation there were edited the formulations
of items, taking into consideration the average of all experts’ scores and their delivered
commentaries. Due to the fact that the average of all experts’ scores was not 3 or less, quite
great attention was paid to those items which the average of all experts’ scores was 4 and less
(totally 5 items) and 4-4.5 scores (12 items). The items, which gained the average score of
4.6-5 were left in the questionnaire, editing some of them at a minimum basis if the experts’
delivered commentaries at them.
In the 6th stage a survey of a target population was carried out. In the survey, there
participated 7 respondents, 4 girls and 3 boys at the age of 17-27 with a 2-16-year experience
in sports. The selection logic of the survey population was made purposefully looking for the
participation of the following ones: the respondents at a more diverse age (the following aid at
the verification of the understanding of statements in any age group); the respondents with
different sports experience.
The aim of the target population survey was to assess items and questions, which seem
to be unclear to a respondent or dismissing and setting some hesitations. The respondents
were asked to assess the items/questions with scores, where 1 score – completely unclear
statement/question or it is not known how to respond to it and 5 – completely clear
item/question and it is known how to respond to it and to comment assessments in the column
for notes.
In the 7th preparatory stage of the questionnaire there were edited the formulations of
items after having tested with a target population.
In the 8th stage there was conducted a reverse translation of scales. The assessment
was conducted by the third translator, i.e. a person, who has not participated in the second
preparatory stage of the questionnaire.
In the 9th stage there was carried out a review of scales after the reverse translation.
The final questionnaire was constructed that was supplemented with the following authors’
completed parts: Types of aggression during trainings and competitions, Athletes, initiating
and experiencing bullying; Bullying and harassment experience and memories; Affirmation,
intervention and prevention of bullying and harassment; The roles of a Victim, Observer and
Bully; Reliable persons and actions, which aided at the survival of bullying and social
demographic factors.
In the 10th stage there was conducted the 2nd expert assessment. In this assessment,
there participated four experts – two men and two women. The highlighting of experts’ gender
in this assessment is significant due to the indicated gender differences of social behaviour in
that and negative assessment (Del Giudice, 2015); thus, in the 2nd expert work there was
selected the equal number of male and female experts. The experts were selected following
these criteria: scientific PhD degree; science field and direction in which the dissertation was
defended; the field of scientific interests, which are grounded under three-year scientific
works (publications, scientific studies, monographies and expert activities). Analysing the
experts’ scientific works, the essential criterion was considered being that in their works there
were researched and exported such objects as sports, physical activeness, athlete training,
peculiarities of sport activities and psychosocial factors in sport performance, behavioural
models and theories, etc. In the selection of experts, their experience in work with athletes or
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
422
sport teams and their personal experience of sport performance were considered being
significant. As in the 1st expert assessment, the exception was made for one expert, who does
not have a scientific PhD degree, however he is a linguistic editor and has a 15-year
experience in the edition of scientific and methodical works in the fields of sport pedagogy
and sport psychology. The involvement of the latter expert was fostered the fact under the
linguistic meaning, in this case in the Lithuanian language, one linguist’s approach, who
participated in the beforehand conducted expert assessment, is not sufficient.
After the 2nd expert assessment, the aim was to identify the relevance of the
questionnaire for the diagnosis of bullying and harassment in sport. The experts were
provided with a complete questionnaire version, i.e. involving already adapted scales, and
other scales present in the questionnaire. The experts were requested to assess: (1) the item
relevance for the measurement of the bullying and harassment phenomenon in sport, assessing
national cultural context; (2) the item necessity for the assessment of their correlation with
bullying and harassment in sport; (3) the clarity of the delivered items to the respondents
(when: 1 – completely irrelevant; 2 – irrelevant; 3 – sets some hesitations; 4 – relevant; 5 –
very relevant).
During the 2nd experts’ assessment as during the 1st one, the same principal was
followed in the edition of items, i.e. the items, that gained 1-2 average of scores, were
rejected, the others were edited. Thus, after estimation of experts’ assessments, no item gained
less than 4 average of scores a particular attention was paid to those items, which had 4-4.5
average of scores (totally 7 items). After having edited items and questions, having taking into
consideration the 2nd expert assessment conclusions, there was developed a questionnaire for
the completion of the pilot study. The questionnaire enables 10 scales to be distinguished:
Antisocial behaviour in sport (ABS) (subscale „Antisocial teammate“ example of item: “I
have argued with a team member/members“); Aggression and anger in completion (ACC)
(subscales „Anger“ example of item: “I feel bitter towards my opponent if I lose“; subscales „
Aggressiveness“ example of item: “It is acceptable to use illegal physical force to gain an
advantage“); Types of aggression during trainings and competitions (TATC) (subscales
„Physical aggression“ example of item: “I can hit another athlete“); Athletes, initiating and
experiencing bullying (AIEB) (subscales „Bully role“ example of item: “I do not accept other
teammates into my close friends’ circle“); Communication obstacles in teammate
interrelationship (COTI) (subscales „Isolation“ example of item: “I feel that the team treat me
as “a non-existent one”); Formation of a negative approach and the pattern of sport tasks
(FNAT) (subscales „Tasks” example of item: “I assigned insulting assignments/task in my
team”); Teammates’ feelings and consequences (TFC) (subscales „Frustration” example of
item: “I am upset about my treatment in the team”); Bullying and harassment experience
(BHE) (subscales „Experience in the previous team” example of item: “I have experienced
bullying in the previous team”); Bullying and harassment memories (BHM) (subscales
„Memories from the previous team” example of item: “I remember the bullying, experienced
in the previous team”); Affirmation, intervention and prevention of bullying and harassment
(IPBH) (subscales „Seeing of the fact and fact statement” example of item: “coaches and other
staff know about bullying, which I see”).
Subjects for validation process and procedure. Collecting data with minimum
measurement errors from an adequate sample size is imperative (Boateng et al., 2018).
Comrey and Lee (1992) suggest a graded scale of sample sizes for scale development: 100 =
poor, 200 = fair, 300 = good, 500 = very good, ≥1,000 = excellent. Guadagnoli, Velicer
(1998) suggested that a minimum of 300–450 is required to observe an acceptable
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
423
comparability of patterns, and that replication is required if the sample size is < 300. In 2017,
the population of youth (14-29 years of age) in organized sports in Lithuania is higher than
50,000. Thus, with 95 per cent probability with the error of 0.5, the required sample size is
382 respondents. Non-probability sampling technique – cluster sampling was chosen to carry
out the research. A total sample of 382 non-professional athletes from different sports were
recruited to take part in this pilot study. Athletes’ age ranged from 16 to 29 years. The
participants were selected based on the following criteria: participation in the organized
amateurs’ sport and longer than 6-month experience in sports.
As it was intended that in the study there were going to participate youth, on the 5th
February, 2018, there was gained the permission of the Lithuanian University of Sports,
Social Sciences Research Ethics Care Committee, to conduct a social study (No. SMTEK-3).
Considering the sensitivity of some of the questions given in the questionnaire, in the request
to issue a permit to conduct a social study the authors of this research committed to
depersonalize the questionnaires, ensuring the respondents’ anonymity and confidentiality,
and to store the collected survey data in personal archives without transferring them to third
parties. The study was carried out in May-July 2018. The paper and online questionnaires for
data collection were selected. Due to the survey of the youth athletes’ it was applied to sport
schools and teams’ coaches, informing them about goals and procedures of the study and
confidential treatment of the results. Having gained their agreements, it was applied to the
athletes with a request to complete the selected questionnaires. Beforehand, all participants
were given oral instructions regarding the study and assured of anonymity, confidentiality and
voluntary nature of their participation. The study authors spread the questionnaires and
conditioned the filling of the questionnaires in the place under their supervision, or let fill
them in at home for the person who had selected a paper questionnaire. In the latter case, the
agreements were made individually concerning the return of the filled in questionnaire to the
researchers in hand. The ones, who had selected the online-based questionnaire, they were
emailed a link or they were given the paper notes with a link. The duration of filling in one
questionnaire was 20-30 minutes.
As the questionnaires were filled in electronically and by distributing paper
questionnaires, all questionnaires that were filled in online were filled in properly, because the
electronic survey system does not allow sending the answers if the questionnaire is not fully
filled in; answers with equal answer rankings are also not allowed. However, several paper
questionnaires had to be rejected after the survey. The main reasons for eliminating
questionnaires from the survey are as follows: incompletely filled in questionnaire, some
questionnaire questions were filled improperly (marking equal rankings), several
questionnaires were found to be unsuitable due to the indicated short period of doing sports
(e.g., 1 month) in a team or group, as well as due to the unsuitable age of the respondent (for
example, younger than 16 years or over 29).
Data analysis. Data analysis were performed using SPSS version 23.0. Reliability of
methodological and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire was estimated via
Cronbach alpha, Spearman Brown coefficients, also Factor loading (L), Total item correlation
(r/itt), etc. Secondary factoring was performed applying Principal components (1 factor
model) F1 and Alpha factoring F1. Intercorrelational relationships of questionnaire scales
were estimated applying Spearman’s Brown correlation coefficient.
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
424
3. Results of the Research
The explained dispersion of the factor has to be larger than the permitted limit of 10
percent, i.e. if the factor dispersion in the subscale is less than 10 percent, the following shows
that there are items, declining the dispersion. In case of the following study, the lowest
percentage of the explained dispersion in terms of all other subscales - 43.28 percent (IPBH,
BI) and the highest is 82.96 percent (IPBH, BP). Thus, even the lowest percentage of the
explained dispersion is more than double higher than the lowest permitted norm. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient discloses how the questionnaire items are correlated and its values in
accordance with the strength of the statistic relation are classified as following: minimally
acceptable 0.65, acceptable 0.70 and optimal 0.80 (Nunnally, 1978; DeVellis, 1991; etc.) The
values lower than 0.60, are acceptable when a scale/subscale consists of several items (Hair et
al., 2006; Hair et al., 2010), or for newly designed instruments (Nunnally, 1978).
Table 1. Psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire scales and subscales (N min = 382; N max = 382
from 382)
Scales
Subs
cales
N of
items
Explained
dispersion
%
Cronbach
alpha
Spear
man
Brown
Factor loading (L)
Total item correlation (r/itt)
mean
min
max
mean
min
max
ABS
AT
4
67.51
0.84
-
0.82
0.80
0.85
0.67
0.52
0.85
AO
8
55.34
0.88
0.83
0.74
0.63
0.83
0.54
0.29
0.84
AAC
AN
6
49.98
0.80
0.79
0.70
0.54
0.76
0.48
0.18
0.75
AG
6
59.30
0.86
0.86
0.77
0.72
0.83
0.58
0.39
0.84
TATC
PA
7
54.63
0.86
0.84
0.73
0.50
0.82
0.53
0.25
0.80
VA
8
50.43
0.86
0.82
0.71
0.58
0.80
0.49
0.20
0.80
IA
8
47.33
0.84
0.78
0.68
0.45
0.81
0.45
0.17
0.78
AIEB
BR
9
52.68
0.88
0.73
0.72
0.52
0.82
0.51
0.26
0.82
VR
4
68.58
0.85
-
0.83
0.74
0.88
0.68
0.37
0.88
COTI
CO
10
51.73
0.89
0.72
0.71
0.49
0.80
0.50
0.20
0.79
IS
6
66.59
0.90
0.89
0.81
0.74
0.88
0.66
0.48
0.89
FNAT
RE
17
46.44
0.93
0.87
0.68
0.58
0.81
0.45
0.11
0.82
TA
9
58.12
0.91
0.88
0.76
0.49
0.86
0.57
0.22
0.84
TFC
HE
6
61.04
0.88
0.87
0.77
0.60
0.87
0.59
0.35
0.81
DA
5
74.84
0.92
0.88
0.86
0.82
0.91
0.74
0.51
0.90
FR
6
65.41
0.89
0.89
0.81
0.74
0.88
0.65
0.49
0.87
BHE
ES
5
46.68
0.75
0.70
0.67
0.44
0.84
0.43
0.15
0.82
ET
5
51.43
0.78
0.76
0.71
0.54
0.84
0.49
0.21
0.83
BHM
SM
5
67.31
0.88
0.86
0.82
0.75
0.87
0.67
0.39
0.88
TM
5
69.70
0.89
0.88
0.83
0.78
0.88
0.69
0.45
0.90
IPBH
FS
4
78.60
0.91
-
0.89
0.80
0.94
0.78
0.55
0.94
BI
8
43.28
0.89
0.81
0.65
0.47
0.79
0.41
0.03
0.83
BP
4
82.96
0.93
-
0.91
0.84
0.94
0.83
0.67
0.93
Notes: questionnaire scales acronyms are broadly presented in the section 2 of the following article “Materials
and Methods”. Questionnaire subscales acronyms: AT – Antisocial teammate, AO – Antisocial opponent, AN –
Anger, AG – Aggressiveness, PA – Physical aggression, VA – Verbal aggression, IA – Indirect aggression, BR –
Bully role, VR – Victim role, CO – Communication, IS – Isolation, RE – Reputation, TA – Tasks, HE – Health,
DA – Damage, FR – Frustration, ES – Experience at school, ET – Experience in the previous team, SM – School
memories, TM – Memories from a previous team, FS – Seeing the situation, fact statement, BI – Bullying
intervention, BP – Bullying prevention.
Source: own calculations.
There are also some provisos if questionnaires are of the psychological pattern. Then,
even lower values may be acceptable (Field, 2013). In case of the following research, all
values of Cronbach’s alpha of all subscales are quite high, i.e. vary from 0.75 (BHE, ES - the
lowest value) to 0.93 (FNAT, RE and IPBH, BP - the highest value). However, the value of
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient depends on the subscale number, made of single items. The
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
425
more items enter a subscale the stronger Cronbach’s alpha coefficient may be affected in the
direction of increase. Thus, seeking for precisely exact results, not only is Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient estimated, but also there is made Spearman-Brown coefficient estimation of the
category division in a half method. The efficiency number of items does not work for this
coefficient (as also for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) (Vveinhardt, 2012). In the sample of the
following study, the lowest value of Spearman-Brown coefficient is 0.70, and the highest 0.89
– the attention has to be paid that this coefficient is not calculated when in the subscale there
are fewer than 4 items. Minimal factor loading (L) cannot be lower than 0.3. In the presence
of the lower meaning than 0.3 the attention has to be paid to the fact that irrelevant behaviour
in the subscale has been detected.
As it can be seen following the results, presented in Table 1, in the case of this study,
in no analysed subscale there is recorded a minimal factor loading lower than 0.3 (lower than
0.44, and the highest – 0.84). The item total correlation (r/itt) does not have to be lower than
0.2. The recorded value lower than 0.2 is again a signal of an irrelevant item, present in the
verified subscale (Vveinhardt, 2012). The results of the item total correlation of the unit whole
(r/itt) disclose that the mean of the questionnaire subscales vary from 0.41 (the lowest value)
to 0.83 (the highest value). Thus, r/itt lower than 0.2 verifies that there are no irrelevant items
in subscales.
Table 2. Secondary factoring results of the questionnaire scales and subscales (N min = 382; N max = 382
from 382)
Scales Subscales
Principal components
(1 factor model) F1
Alpha factoring F1
Antisocial behaviour in sport (ABS)
Antisocial teammate
0.88
0.73
Antisocial opponent
0.88
0.73
Clarified dispersion
76.59%
53,09%
Aggression and anger in competition (AAC)
Anger
0.85
0.66
Aggressiveness
0.85
0.66
Clarified dispersion
71.72%
43.33%
Types of aggression during trainings and competitions (TATC)
Indirect aggression
0.88
0.85
Verbal aggression
0.87
0.79
Physical aggression
0.83
0.71
Clarified dispersion
74.24%
61.74%
Athletes, initiating and experiencing bullying (AIEB)
Victim role
0.87
0.72
Bully role
0.87
0.72
Clarified dispersion
76.27%
52.44%
Communication obstacles in teammates interrelationship (COTI)
Isolation
0.91
0.81
Communication
0.91
0.81
Clarified dispersion
82.90%
65.70%
Formation of negative approach and the pattern of sport tasks (FNAT)
Reputation
0.92
0.82
Tasks
0.92
0.82
Clarified dispersion
83.93%
67.77%
Teammates’ feelings and consequences (TFC)
Health
0.92
0.91
Damage
0.91
0.86
Frustration
0.86
0.74
Clarified dispersion
80.25%
71.03%
Bullying and harassment experience (BHE)
Experience in the previous team
0.92
0.82
Experience at school
0.92
0.82
Clarified dispersion
84.05%
68.02%
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
426
Table 2 (continuation). Secondary factoring results of the questionnaire scales and subscales (N min = 382;
N max = 382 from 382)
Bullying and harassment memories (BHM)
Memories from a previous team
0.93
0.86
School memories
0.93
0.86
Clarified dispersion
86.81%
73.54%
Affirmation, intervention and prevention of bullying and harassment (IPBH)
Bullying intervention
0.91
0.63
Bullying prevention
0.83
0.58
Seeing the situation, fact statement
0.47
0.32
Clarified dispersion
57.89%
36.06%
Source: own calculations.
Having indicated the methodological characteristics of quality of questionnaire scales
and subscales, it is obligatory to carry out their secondary factoring. The primary and
secondary factoring are requested when there are questionnaires of a great extent. The
subscales, which make the scale, have to be similar under their content and logic. During the
first factoring, there is estimated the whole of criteria, and during the second factoring, these
criteria are connected into scales. The more factor weight is nearer 1, the more is the single
questionnaire item conforming the excluded factor. The primary and secondary factoring of
the questionnaire subscales are estimated applying Principal components and Alpha factoring
methods (Table 2).
The delivered factoring in Table 2 illustrates the scale results of all questionnaire parts,
which highlight the subscales, which gained the greatest respondents’ agreement. The scale
“Bullying and harassment memories (BHM)” gained the greatest respondents’ agreement (in
accordance with the method Principal components) – 86.81 percent, and relatively the lowest
agreement was recorded in the scale “Affirmation, intervention and prevention of bullying and
harassment (IPBH)” – 57.89 percent. Thus, the secondary factoring results repeatedly verify
high methodological characteristics of the questionnaire scales. Intercorrelational relationships
of the questionnaire scales are introduced in Table 3.
Table 3. Intercorrelational relationships of scales (N min = 382; N max = 382 from 382)
Scales
ABS
AAC
TATC
AIEB
COTI
FNAT
TFC
BHE
BHM
IPBH
ABS
1
,665**
0,000
,593**
0,000
,465**
0,000
,242**
0,000
,298**
0,000
,202**
0,000
,232**
0,000
,115*
0,025
,261**
0,000
AAC
,665**
0,000
1
,692**
0,000
,474**
0,000
,325**
0,000
,350**
0,000
,268**
0,000
,301**
0,000
,139**
0,006
,333**
0,000
TATC
,593**
0,000
,692**
0,000
1
,576**
0,000
,354**
0,000
,393**
0,000
,296**
0,000
,337**
0,000
,232**
0,000
,338**
0,000
AIEB
,465**
0,000
,474**
0,000
,576**
0,000
1
,566**
0,000
,592**
0,000
,528**
0,000
,467**
0,000
,368**
0,000
,404**
0,000
COTI
,242**
0,000
,325**
0,000
,354**
0,000
,566**
0,000
1
,713**
0,000
,593**
0,000
,421**
0,000
,373**
0,000
,432**
0,000
FNAT
,298**
0,000
,350**
0,000
,393**
0,000
,592**
0,000
,713**
0,000
1
,713**
0,000
,496**
0,000
,433**
0,000
,474**
0,000
TFC
,202**
0,000
,268**
0,000
,296**
0,000
,528**
0,000
,593**
0,000
,713**
0,000
1
,403**
0,000
,392**
0,000
,509**
0,000
BHE
,232**
0,000
,301**
0,000
,337**
0,000
,467**
0,000
,421**
0,000
,496**
0,000
,403**
0,000
1
,510**
0,000
,342**
0,000
BHM
,115*
0,025
,139**
0,006
,232**
0,000
,368**
0,000
,373**
0,000
,433**
0,000
,392**
0,000
,510**
0,000
1
,327**
0,000
IPBH
,261**
0,000
,333**
0,000
,338**
0,000
,404**
0,000
,432**
0,000
,474**
0,000
,509**
0,000
,342**
0,000
,327**
0,000
1
Notes: In the table, presented acronyms of scales are broadly presented in the section 2 of the following article
“Materials and Methods”. ** statistical significance 0.01; * statistical significance 0.05.
Source: own calculations.
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
427
In order to identify the intercorrelational relationships under the level of the
questionnaire scales, the coefficient of Spearman was estimated (Table 3). As the results show
some scales does not have the strong correlation, i.e. 0.6<r<=0.8 and average strength
correlation 0.4<r<=0.6, what is natural as the more diverse respondents’ approaches are, the
weaker the correlation is. It should be emphasized that reliability in all analyzed positions is
statistically significant.
Conclusions
(1) Bullying and harassment in organized sport as an expression of its participants’
aggressive and antisocial behaviour determine that sport organizations encounter challenges
ensuring athletes’ rights to participate in safe sport. Although there is agreement on the
importance of discussing and investigating bullying and harassment, the research in sport
contexts still badly lacks such assessments. The reason for this is both incompletely purified
conception of the phenomenon of bullying and harassment, non-created correlation with other
phenomena of destructive relationships between sport participants and the absence of the
conceptual instrument encompassing all bullying and harassment problems. The solution of
these problems would provide a real possibility to reliably diagnose the prevalence and
manifestation of bullying and harassment in sport and to contribute to the development of
research-based effective anti-bullying policies in sport.
(2) The formation of the questionnaire included ten stages, involving the authors’
scales, having adapted them after having received a permission and under the basis of the
scientific literature analysis having completed new scales, which would respond to the aim of
this article, set by the authors, to form a more diverse instrument for the diagnosis of bullying
phenomena.
(3) In order to form a universal questionnaire, involving both moments of present and
previous situations, also for the diagnosis of the victim’s and the bully’s roles and prevention
and intervention actions, there was conducted a pilot study, aiming at the determination of
psychometric characteristics of a new instrument. Even with a relatively small sample, and
taking into account the fact that young respondents participated in the survey, the values of
the coefficients obtained showed that the weights of the scales and sub-scales of the
questionnaire meet the reliability and validity requirements. This confirms that the instrument
is suitable for measuring the set whole of attributes. The respondents’ acceptance of the
distinguished criteria was determined on the basis of the explained dispersion. Even the
smallest dispersion of all dimensions of the explained factor is significantly higher than the
stated permissible dispersion, which proves that respondents strongly support the
distinguished criteria. Verification of the methodological and psychometric characteristics of
the questionnaire confirmed the reliability of the instrument, thus it can reasonably be stated
that the questionnaire is valid and reliable and suitable for the diagnosis of phenomena of
bullying and single cases of harassment in the context of sport in order to contribute to
effective implementation of anti-bullying policies.
References
Balcikanli, G.S. (2013), „The Turkish adaptation of the Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale
(PABSS)”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 3, No 18, pp.271-276.
Boateng, G.O., Neilands, T.B., Frongillo, E.A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R., Young, S.L. (2018), „Best Practices for
Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer”, Frontiers in
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
428
Public Health, Vol. 6, p.149, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
Brackenridge, C., Bringer, J.D., Bishopp, D. (2005), „Managing cases of abuse in sport”, Child Abuse Review,
Vol. 14, No 4, pp.259-274, https://doi.org/10.1002/car.900.
Cornell, D., Limber, S.P. (2015), „Law and policy on the concept of bullying at school”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 70, No 4, pp.333-343, doi: 10.1037/a0038558.
Comrey, A.L., Lee, H. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., Molcho, M., de
Mato, M.G., Overpeck, M., Due, P., Pickett, W., HBSC Violence & Injuries Prevention Focus Group;
HBSC Bullying Writing Group (2009), „A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among
adolescents in 40 countries”, International Journal of Public Health, Vol. 2, pp.216-224, doi:
10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9.
Dane-Staples, E., Lieberman, L.J., Ratcliff, J., Rounds, K. (2013), „Bullying experiences of individuals with
visual impairment: The mitigating role of sport participation”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 36, No 4,
pp.365-386.
Del Giudice, M. (2015), „Gender differences in personality and social behavior”, in: International Encyclopedia
of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, J.D. Wright (eds.), Elsevier: New York, USA, pp.750-
756.
DeVellis, R. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage Publications: London, UK.
e Silva, M.J.C., Figueiredo, A.J., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Malina, R.M. (2016), „Youth Sports: Participation,
Trainability and Readiness”, 2nd Edition, Coimbra University Press: Coimbra, Portugal.
Espelage, D.L., Holt, M. (2001), „Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and
psychosocial correlates”, Journal of Emotional Abuse, Vol. 2, No 2-3, pp.123-142,
doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_08.
Evans, B., Adler, A., MacDonald, D., Côté, J. (2016), „Bullying victimization and perpetration among
adolescent sport teammates”, Pediatric Exercise Science, Vol. 28, No 2, pp.296-303, doi:
10.1123/pes.2015-0088.
Fasting, K. (2017), „Gender, Sexual Harassment and Abuse in Sport”, in: G. Sobiech, S. Günter (eds.), Sport &
Gender – (inter)nationale sportsoziologische Geschlechterforschung. Geschlecht und Gesellschaft,
Springer VS, Wiesbaden, Vol. 59, pp.167-177.
Field, A. (2013), „Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics”, 4th edition, Sage Publications: London,
UK.
Fisher, A., Dzikus, L. (2017), „Bullying in Sport and Performance Psychology”, in: Acevedo, E.O. (Eds.),
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, Oxford University Press, pp.1-24,
doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.16.
Frick, P.J., Lahey, B.B., Loeber, R., Tannenbaum, L., Van Horn, Y., Christ, M.A.G., Hart, E.A., Hanson, K.
(1993), „Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A meta-analytic review of factor analyses
and cross-validation in a clinical sample”, Clinical Psychology Review, Vol. 13, No 4, pp.319-340,
doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(93)90016-F.
Gentile, A., Valantinė, I., Staškevičiūtė-Butienė, I., Kreivytė, R., Mujkic, D., Ajdinovic, A., Kezić, A., Miletić,
Đ., Kovačević, A.A., Madić, D., Drid, P., Bianco, A. (2018), „Preventing violence and social exclusion
through sport and physical activity: the SAVE project”, Journal of Functional Morphology and
Kinesiology, Vol. 3, No 2, pp.1-3, doi.org/10.3390/jfmk3020025.
Guadagnoli, E., Velicer, W.F. (1988), „Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No 2, pp.265-275, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson education: Upper
Saddle River, N.J., USA.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edition, Pearson
Educational, Inc: New Jersey, USA.
Hespanhol, J.L.C., Van Mechelen, W., Postuma, E., Verhagen, E. (2016), „Health and economic burden of
running-related injuries in runners training for an event: A prospective cohort study”, Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. 26, No 9, pp.1091-1099, doi: 10.1111/sms.12541.
Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C. (2011), „Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: The role of coaching style,
autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement”, Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, Vol. 33, No 4, pp.527-547, doi: 10.1123/jsep.33.4.527.
Jones, B.D., Woodman, T., Barlow, M., Roberts, R. (2017), „The darker side of personality: Narcissism predicts
moral disengagement and antisocial behavior in sport”, The Sport Psychologist, Vol. 31, No 2, pp.109-
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
429
116, doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2016-0007.
Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I.D. (2009), „The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale”, Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 31, No 1, pp.97-117, doi: 10.1123/jsep.31.1.97.
Kentel, J.L., McHugh, T.L. (2015), „“Mean mugging”: An exploration of young Aboriginal women’s
experiences of bullying in team sports”, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 37, No 4,
pp.367-378, doi: 10.1123/jsep.2014-0291.
Koo, H. (2007), „A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts”, Asia Pacific
Education Review, Vol. 8, No 1, pp.107-116, doi.org/10.1007/BF03025837.
Malina, R.M. (2009), „Organized youth sports V background, trends, benefits and risks”, in: Coelho e Silva,
M.J., Figueiredo, A.J., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Malina, R.M. (Eds.), Youth Sports, Volume I:
Participation, Trainability and Readiness, Coimbra (Portugal): Coimbra University Press, pp. 2-27.
Maxwell, J.P., Moores, E. (2007), „The development of a short scale measuring aggressiveness and anger in
competitive athletes”, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Vol. 8, No 2, pp.179-193, doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.03.002.
Mendez-Baldwin, M., Fontaine, A., Consiglio, J. (2017), „An Examination of High School Athletes’ Attitudes
about Bullying and Hazing”, Journal of Bullying and Social Aggression, Vol. 2, No 2,
sites.tamuc.edu/bullyingjournal/article/high-school-athletes-attitudes-bullying-hazing/
Molcho, M., Craig, W., Due, P., Pickett, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Overpeck, M., HBSC Bullying Writing Group.
(2009), „Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994-2006: findings from Europe and North
America”, International Journal of Public Health, Vol. 54, No 2, pp.225-234, doi.org/10.1007/s00038-
009-5414-8.
Mountjoy, M., Brackenridge, C., Arrington, M., Blauwet, C., Carska-Sheppard, A., Fasting, K., Starr, K. (2016),
„International Olympic Committee consensus statement: harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence)
in sport”, British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 50, No 17, pp.1019-1029.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), „Psychometric Theory”, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill: New Jersey, USA.
Orpinas, P., McNicholas, C., Nahapetyan, L. (2015), „Gender differences in trajectories of relational aggression
perpetration and victimization from middle to high school”, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 41, No 5, pp.401-
412, doi: 10.1002/ab.21563.
Patchin, J.W., Hinduja, S. (2015), „Measuring cyberbullying: implications for research”, Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, pp.69-74, /doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013.
Shujja, S., Atta, M. (2011), „Translation and validation of Illinois Bullying Scale for Pakistani children and
adolescents”, Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 9, pp.79-82.
Sinkkonen, H.M., Puhakka, H., Meriläinen, M. (2014), „Bullying at a university: students' experiences of
bullying”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No 1, pp.153-165, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.649726.
Stefaniuk, L., Bridel, W. (2018), „Anti-Bullying Policies in Canadian Sport: An Absent Presence”, Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 36, No 2, pp.160-176, doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-12-
8439.
Sterling, A., Kerr, G. (2016), „Athlete maltreatment”, in: R.J. Schinke, K.R. McGannon, B. Smith, (Eds.),
Routledge International Handbook of Sport Psychology, Routledge: London, UK, pp.184-194.
Strout, T.D., Vessey, J.A., Difazio, R.L., Ludlow, L.H. (2018), „The Child Adolescent Bullying Scale (CABS):
psychometric evaluation of a new measure”, Research in Nursing & Health, Vol. 41, No 3, pp.252-264,
doi: 10.1002/nur.21871.
Sutton, J., Smith, P.K., Swettenham, J. (1999), „Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: A critique of the ‘social skills
deficit’view of anti-social behaviour”, Social Development, Vol. 8, No 1, pp.117-127,
doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00083.
Thornberg, R. (2015), „The social dynamics of school bullying: The necessary dialogue between the blind men
around the elephant and the possible meeting point at the socialecological square”, Confero: Essays on
Education, Philosophy and Politics, Vol. 3, No 2, pp.161-203, doi: 10.3384/confero.2001.
Traclet, A., Romand, P., Moret, O., Kavussanu, M. (2011), „Antisocial behavior in soccer: A qualitative study of
moral disengagement”, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 9, No 2, pp.143-
155, doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2011.567105.
Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., Lösel, F., Crago, R.V., Theodorakis, N. (2016), „School bullying and drug use
later in life: A meta-analytic investigation”, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 31, No 1, pp.8-27, doi:
10.1037/spq0000120.
Volk, A.A., Lagzdins, L. (2009), „Bullying and victimization among adolescent girl athletes”, Athletic Insight,
Vol. 11, No 1, pp.12-25.
Vveinhardt, J. (2012), „Identification of the reliability of methodological characteristics of quality in the
J. Vveinhardt, V. B. Fominiene,
L. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene
ISSN 1648-4460
Advances in Scientific and Technological Research and Innovation
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 18, No 3C (48C), 2019
430
diagnostic instrument for mobbing as discrimination in employee relations on purpose to improve the
climate in Lithuanian organisations”, Transformations in Business & Economics, Vol. 11, No 2, pp.218-
232.
Vveinhardt, J., Komskiene, D., Romero, Z. (2017), „Bullying and harassment prevention in youth basketball
teams”, Transformation in Business & Economics, Vol. 16, No 1, pp.232-251.
Vveinhardt, J., Streimikiene, D. (2015), „The questionnaire for diagnosing mobbing in employees’
relationships”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Vol. 28, No 1, pp.441-466, doi:
10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075415.
Zych, I., Farrington, D.P., Llorent, V.J., Ttofi, M.M. (2017b), „School Bullying in Different Countries:
Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Short-Term Outcomes”, Protecting Children Against Bullying and Its
Consequences, SpringerBriefs in Psychology Springer, Cham, pp.5-22, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53028-
4_2.
PATYČIŲ IR PRIEKABIŲ SPORTE DIAGNOZAVIMO KLAUSIMYNO METODOLOGINĖS IR
PSICHOMETRINĖS CHARAKTERISTIKOS: STATISTINĖ PATIKRA
Jolita Vveinhardt, Vilija Bitė Fominienė, Laima Jesevičiūtė-Ufartienė
SANTRAUKA
Straipsnyje aptariami tyrimai, analizuojantys destruktyvius tarpasmeninius santykius organizuotame
sporte, koncentruojant dėmesį į patyčias ir priekabes, kurios kelia didžiulę grėsmę saugiam sportui.
Diskutuojama apie nepakankamai išgrynintą patyčių ir priekabių sampratą, sąsajas su kitais destruktyvių
santykių tarp sporto dalyvių reiškiniais ir jų valdymo mechanizmų nepakankamumą. Siekiant užkirsti kelią
destruktyvių reiškinių plitimui ir vystymuisi sporte, privalu nuolat atlikti tyrimus, kurių rezultatai leistų laiku
priimti prevencinius ir intervencinius sprendimus. Tačiau mokslinėje literatūroje pasigesta konceptualaus
instrumento, apimančio visas straipsnyje aptariamas destruktyvaus elgesio apraiškas, taip pat galinčio užfiksuoti
ar prognozuoti patyčių ir priekabių sporte formavimąsi. Todėl, stengiantis užpildyti spragą šioje srityje, autorės
pristato naują klausimyną, skirtą patyčioms ir priekabėms sporte diagnozuoti.
Detalizuojant naujo instrumento sudarymo logiką, aprašomi visi dešimt klausimyno formavimo etapų.
Nurodomos į jį įtrauktos kitų autorių skalės, jų adaptavimo, gavus leidimą, procedūros, bei pristatomos
mokslinės literatūros analizės pagrindu sudarytos naujos skalės, kurios atliepia šio straipsnio autorių išsikeltą
tikslą kuo įvairiapusiškiau suformuoti patyčių ir priekabių reiškinius diagnozuojantį instrumentą pateikiant
psichometrines charakteristikas.
Kaip galutinis šio tyrimo rezultatas pristatomas naujas klausimynas „Patyčių ir priekabių sporte
klausimynas (BHISQ)“, sudarytas iš dešimties skalių ir dvidešimt trijų subskalių bei pateikiamos naujo
klausimyno psichometrinės charakteristikos. Pastarųjų patikra patvirtina instrumento patikimumą, todėl pagrįstai
galima teigti, kad klausimynas yra validus ir patikimas bei tinkamas patyčių ir priekabių reiškinių diagnostikai
sporto kontekste siekiant prisidėti prie efektyvaus patyčių prevencijos programos/-ų įgyvendinimo.
REIKŠMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: skalės, klausimynas, diagnostika, ekspertinis vertinimas, antisocialus elgesys,
patyčios, priekabės, destruktyvūs tarpusavio santykiai.
