This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA]

On: 03 April 2015, At: 13:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Prevention and Reduction of

Behavioural Problems in School: An
evaluation of the Respect program
a

Sigrun K. Ertesvg & Grete Srensen Vaaland

University of Stavanger , Norway

Published online: 26 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Sigrun K. Ertesvg & Grete Srensen Vaaland (2007) Prevention and
Reduction of Behavioural Problems in School: An evaluation of the Respect program, Educational
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 27:6, 713-736, DOI:
10.1080/01443410701309258
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410701309258

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Educational Psychology
Vol. 27, No. 6, December 2007, pp. 713736

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Prevention and Reduction of

Behavioural Problems in School: An
evaluation of the Respect program
Sigrun K. Ertesvg* and Grete Srensen Vaaland
University of Stavanger, Norway
0SigrunErtesvg
sigrun.ertesvag@uis.no
000002007
Educational
10.1080/01443410701309258
CEDP_A_230827.sgm
0144-3410
Original
Taylor
2007
00
and
&
Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5820
Francis
Psychology
Ltd
(online)

Disobedient pupils, off-task behaviour, and bullying are common problems in schools in many
countries; they interfere with teaching, create an unsafe learning environment, and challenge the
staff. Effective programs involving entire schools to prevent and reduce such problems have
already been designed and implemented. However, most interventions target one type of problem
behaviour, and their effects have only been evaluated in the short term. The Respect program1 is
broad in the sense that it targets not just one but several types of behaviour in order to prevent and
reduce problem behaviour. The program was implemented among all the staff and pupils at three
primary schools and one secondary school in Norway. A cohort longitudinal design was used in
evaluating the program. Pupils in the four schools reported a decrease in the four areas of problem
behaviour. This decrease was sustained or continued after the intervention period for some types
of behaviour, even though the results differed between grade levels. In terms of effect size, the
results were small to moderate for most grade levels. Although this analysis was non-experimental
in nature, it does document sustainable change resulting from intervention in an entire school and
suggests that this could be maintained in the long term.

Numerous studies conducted over the past three decades have documented both the
characteristics and negative effects of different types of behavioural problem (e.g.,
Coie & Jacobs, 1993; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Parker & Asher, 1987; Pepler &
Rubin, 1991; Reid, 1993; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). Much is currently
known about how to prevent and reduce the behaviour problems of todays children
and youth (e.g., Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Baumbarger, 1999; Leff, Power, Manz,
Costigan, & Nabors, 2001; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Walker & Shinn, 2002). Of
the research-based interventions, both Norwegian and international (e.g.,
Grossmann et al., 1997; Manger, Eikeland, & Asbjrnsen, 2002; Olweus, 2005;
*Corresponding author. Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger, N-4036
Stavanger, Norway. Email: sigrun.ertesvag@uis.no
ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-5820 (online)/07/06071324
2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI 10.1080/01443410701309258

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

714 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

Ortega, del-Rey, & Mora-Merchan, 2004; Roland, Bru, Midthassel, & Vaaland,
submitted), most or all have had a limited focus on one type of problem behaviour,
such as bullying or social skills. Although such programs can be effective, this
limited approach has important weaknesses. It has been argued that these programs
are probably both difficult to integrate into a general school policy and difficult to
maintain (e.g., Ager & Cole, 1991; Roland, 2000; Roland & Galloway, 2002).
Developing and implementing interventions that produce sustainable change in
pupils behavioural problems presents a challenge (Greenberg, 2004). Furthermore,
most interventions intended to prevent or reduce problem behaviour strive to
improve classroom behaviour by focusing on children as individuals, yet very few do
so by focusing on class-level or school-level variables. Instead of adopting a childcentred focus, programs might instead focus on promoting prosocial behaviour by
working with teachers to improve the quality of teaching and social life at the classroom and school levels. In other words, they should have an effect on the system of
the school. This would enable simultaneous work on preventing and reducing
problem behaviour, on enhancing teachers professional development, and on
improvements at the school and classroom levels. This approach is expected to
reduce problem behaviour in the longer term and increase the quality of the overall
learning environment.
Interventions aimed at delivering more positive outcomes for children and youth
must incorporate actions designed to keep problems from emerging, to reverse or
preclude any harmful effects of exposure to known risk factors, and to reduce rather
than reverse any harm caused to those pupils most greatly involved (Walker &
Shinn, 2002). To address the needs of all pupils in a given school, including those
who are judged not to be at risk, actions must be coordinated at all these levels and
meaningfully involve pupils, parents, teachers, and management.
Effective programs have: (1) tended to involve multiple agents within the intervention; (2) lasted more than a year so that the results could be fully registered; (3)
consisted of multiple components; and (4) been implemented across multiple settings
(Greenberg et al., 1999; Leff et al., 2001; Walker, Golly, McLane, & Kimmich, 2005).
A new intervention program was designed to apply a broad approach to the
prevention and reduction of problem behaviour in general, and in particular disobedience, off-task behaviour, and bullying among the pupils. The Respect program
works at the system level by including all school personnel, pupils, and parents to
improve the quality of the school at the individual, classroom, and school levels.
This study is part of a larger evaluation of the program. The article describes the
Respect program and its scientific basis, reporting the results of the pilot evaluation
of program effects on four types of problem behaviour; disobedience, off-task behaviour, bullying and becoming a victim of bullying. The program addressed all professional groups at the school in order to reduce these four types of problem behaviour.
With this aim in mind, there was a focus on leadership, collaboration, collective
strategies, and a policy of prevention and intervention. Accordingly, the program
concentrates on the roles and responsibilities of the adults as well as on changing
pupil behaviour through changing adult behaviour. A key question was whether the

Behavioural Problems

715

program would produce any short- or long-term effects on levels of pupil disobedience, off-task behaviour, and bullying.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Behavioural Problems and the Teachers Role

Some schools enter a process of deterioration when pupils perceive that those pupils
who behave violently or break rules go undetected or, if detected, are not stopped
(Toby, 1993). Additionally, teachers differ in the strategies they employ when faced
with disobedience, and also in how successfully they deal with undesirable pupil
behaviour (Pianta, 1999; Rydell & Henricsson, 2004). When teachers correct problem
behaviour, they also affect future pupil behaviour. Relationship-based discipline and
intervention involves teachers developing distinct expectations of pupil behaviour. It
results in less disobedient behaviour and less disturbance of schoolwork when
combined with rewards for pro-social behaviour and consequences for behaviour that
diverges from the norm (Bear, 1998; Brophy, 1996; Hughes, 2002; Kounin, 1970).
Nevertheless, teachers repertoires of intervention tactics appear rather limited when
they are required to deal with disturbing pupil behaviour (Rydell & Henricsson, 2004).
Discipline characterized by coercion and aggression is related to a high level of
disobedience and greater distraction in pupils work (Lewis, 2001). Pupils reports of
the relationship between disobedient behaviour and teachers disciplinary styles
suggest there is reason to expect that improvements in teaching style and classroom
leadership will impact on pupil behaviour (Bear, 1998; Kounin, 1970). Thus, strengthening classroom leadership implies clarifying the norms and expectations of pupil
behaviour and permits the teacher to intervene effectively when standards have been
breached. Additionally, effective classroom leadership has been found to be related to
the spent time on-task (Mitchem, Young, West, & Benyo, 2001; Roland, 1999). Bullying among peers is also sensitive to the classroom climate which, in turn, is influenced
by classroom leadership (Bru, Murberg, & Stephens, 2001; Roland & Galloway,
2002). Furthermore, a unified strategy incorporating a shared understanding of adult
roles and responsibilities and a shared commitment among staff can effectively reduce
problem behaviour in schools (Marr, Audett, White, Ellis, & Algozzine, 2002).
Aggression is related to the four types of problem behaviour addressed in the
study, as a high level of aggression is related to a high level of problem behaviour (de
la Barra, Toledo, & Rodriguez, 2005; Dodge, 1991; Farmer, Goforth, Clemmer, &
Thompson, 2004; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Roland & Idse, 2001; Vaaland &
Roland, submitted). Aggression has also been found to be a relatively stable characteristic (Adams, Bukowski, & Bagwell, 2005; Olweus, 1979).

Intervention
Principles
The intervention program was built around four key principles based on theory,
previous research, and experience of the development of disobedience, off-task

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

716 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

behaviour, and bullying as well as interventions designed to prevent and reduce
these problems.
First, adults are supposed to act as sources of authority. This implies an authoritative approach that, in principle, aims to create a warm and caring environment
characterized by positive interest and adult involvement on the one hand and clear
standards of acceptable behaviour on the other (Roland & Vaaland, 2005). Such a
combination aims to prevent problems, and also has the additional dual purpose of
managing behaviour in the short term and developing responsibility among pupils in
the long term.
Second, the program is broad-based, in the sense that it aims to prevent and
reduce several types of behavioural problems, involve all participants in school
(pupils, teachers, parents, management, etc.) and intervene at pupil, classroom and
school levels.
Third, adults should act consistently in order to ensure they make an impact on
pupil behaviour. The program incorporates consistencyin the intervention
measures implemented, in attitudes and actions, between teachers, and a general
level of substantial consistency. This means that each new initiative depends on the
previous ones while adding to the intervention. For example, the authoritative
approach should characterize every teachers actions with regard to every single pupil.
This approach is prescribed for teachers classroom leadership and all their actions
directed at classes or groups of pupils. The pupils thus experience identical attitudes
and approaches regardless of teacher. All teachers should also demonstrate intrapersonal consistency across time and situation. Furthermore, the principle of consistency implies a shared understanding of and commitment among staff to the work
required for preventing and reducing problem behaviour. Consequently, all staff react
in the same way to pupils violating behavioural standards at school. Additionally,
substantial consistency will increase a teachers influence on pupil behaviour, for
example when the teacher communicates in ways that underpin connections between
good academic work and good behavioural standards.
Fourth and finally, the program is based on the principle of continuity, which
implies a long-term commitment to the previous three principles. This means that
new actions are implemented only once the previous ones have been established.
Thus each new action will be added to the string of previous actions. The activities
follow one another in a specific order; the first ones determine the conditions for
those that follow (Fandrem & Roland, 2000). In addition, any actions implemented
need to be continued over timefor months or even years. However, the Respect
program is not a detailed one. From its general principles and examples, a school
will need to develop activities and solutions at the school, class, and individual levels
that maintain focus and develop skills.
Main Approaches
There were four main strategies to the implementation of the program: a whole
school approach, classroom leadership, careful timing, and full commitment.

Behavioural Problems

717

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Whole school approach. Elements in the whole school approach were: strengthening
leadership at the school level (Roland, 1999), developing systems for learning and
collaboration between staff (Munthe & Midthassel, 2001) and between staff and
parents (Roland, Bjrnsen, & Mandt, 2003), and actions at the individual,
classroom, and school levels. Simultaneous integrated actions over time promote
effective interventions (Hopkins, Harris, & Jackson, 1997).
Classroom leadership. An authoritative approach to teaching requires teachers to act
as classroom leaders and at the same time develop positive relationships with individual pupils that enable them to correct pupil behaviour continuously. Thus, a
focus on the teacher as a leader who can influence pupil behaviour is an alternative
or supplement to campaign days or weeks focusing on bullying, etc. Such campaigns
run the risk of becoming mere happenings where teachers stimulate positive attitudes among peers and formulate rules against bullying. However, daily life is hectic,
and rules and standards are not sufficiently followed up.
Timing. The timing of any intervention should be considered carefully. The beginning of the school year is probably of great importance, as social structures develop
quickly during this period (Kounin, 1970; Roland, 1999). Starting a new class or
restarting after a long vacation are situations characterized more or less by a social
vacuum. Teachers participating in a program are therefore encouraged to use this
start-up period to take a stand as classroom leader, as someone leading social group
processes in order to establish a healthy and productive social climate and establish
behavioural standards in the classroom. The social process is to be integrated into
the academic activity in the classroom (Eriksen, 2001; Roland, 1999).
Commitment. No adult in a school should witness a situation involving rulebreaking behaviour without taking action. This policy is expected to exercise a
preventative function once pupils are aware of it (Roland & Vaaland, 2005). When
teachers are confident about intervening they can consider situations involving problem behaviour as opportunities for demonstrating authoritative leadership, combining warmth with demands whenever they highlight prescribed standards by putting
them into practice. All the programs key principles will be reinforced when every
member of staff handles challenging situations in an authoritative way.

Program Content
Teachers and school management staff participated in a series of seminars introducing them to the principles of and practical approaches to the prevention and reduction of behavioural problems, along with some illustrative examples. A two-day
seminar for the schools management, other key school personnel, and representatives of the school district administration was run in advance of the implementation

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

718 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

period. The topics included the principles of the program, local responsibility, and
management. After that each school held a one-day workshop aimed at ensuring that
the staff understood the schools own implementation process. These seminars were
held in the spring before the summer holidays, as they were meant to prepare for
program implementation and the commencement of the next school year. Four oneday seminars were conducted during the one-year implementation period for the
entire staff, covering: (1) starting a new school year; (2) behavioural problems
causes, intervention, and backup systems; (3) classroom leadership and teaching;
and (4) the school community. In addition, a two-day seminar was held for the
leaders of teacher peer counselling groups. All teachers at each school attended peercounselling groups regularly (at least once a month) during the program period.
Additionally, a supervisor from the Centre for Behavioural Research was available
for consultation at each school during the school year.
Although each headteacher had overall responsibility at the school level for adhering to the principles of the program, a project group shared day-to-day responsibility
for implementing the program. The headteacher was a member of this group. A
network was established between the project groups at the four participating schools
with the aim of discussing knowledge, experiences, and challenges related to program
implementation. The network held four meetings during the program year and
continued to meet after the program had ended. The results of survey questionnaires
were used to create an understanding of the challenges presented to the schools by
problem behaviour and the involvement of staff and parents in the program.
The theoretical and empirical bases for the program have already been elaborated
on by Roland and his colleagues (e.g., Roland, 1999; Roland & Galloway, 2002;
Roland & Vaaland, 2005).

Method
Subjects and Procedure
The pilot version of the program was conducted at three primary schools and one
secondary school, and included all staff and pupils. Measurements were made at
four points in time, T1T4, spread equally over a period of four years. Pupils in the
four schools completed questionnaires in May 2002 (T1), about three months
before the intervention. New measurements were taken at the end of the intervention phase in May 2003 (T2). In order to examine the sustainability and longer-term
effects of the program, follow-up measurements were taken in May 2004 (T3) and
May 2005 (T4).
Teachers administered all assessments in their classrooms. To enhance the pupils
understanding of the questionnaire, teachers read each question aloud. Parental
consent was obligatory, and only pupils whose parents gave consent were included
in the sample.
Due to the challenges presented by the measurements, the youngest pupils were
not included in the survey. At each point, the evaluation sample included pupils in

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Behavioural Problems

719

Grades 57 (aged 1113 years) at the primary schools and Grades 810 (aged 1416
years) at the secondary school. As the evaluation included pupils in Grades 510 at
all four points, the evaluation samples did not include all the same pupils. Pupils
were not included in the sample until they started in the fifth grade, even if they had
participated in the program from the start. Some of the secondary school pupils at
T2, T3, and T4 had prior experience of the program while attending one of the
primary schools. However, the secondary school also recruited pupils from two other
primary schools not included in the program. The situation at the secondary school
was consequently somewhat different from that of the primary schools. Even though
they perhaps did not attend one of the intervention schools during the program year,
all secondary pupils were included in the sample since the primary target group of
the intervention comprised the teachers, and the pupils are expected to benefit from
changes in both school policy and their teachers classroom management.
The numbers of pupils completing the survey at T1T4 were 745, 769, 798, and
792 respectively. The corresponding response rates were 81%, 86%, 89%, and 86%.
Non-response resulted mainly from pupils being absent from class when the
questionnaires were administered and from parents failing to return the slips giving
their permission.
The use of self-reporting in studies of problem behaviour has been discussed and
questioned elsewhere (e.g., Loeber, Green, Lahey, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1991;
Stockdale, Hangaduambo, Duys, Larson, & Sarvela, 2002). The results of class
teachers ratings of their pupils behaviour were included. These results have already
been presented and discussed elsewhere (Ertesvg, 2003) and are presented here for
comparison with the pupil reports. These teacher ratings were not repeated in the
follow-up assessments as the questionnaires proved time-consuming for the teachers. The results presented were collected at T1 in May 2002 and at T2 in May 2003.
All class teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire about their pupils behaviour. The response rates for class teachers were 90% and 87%, and included the
ratings for pupils in 61 of 68 classes at T1 and 61 of 70 classes at T2.
Study Design
An extended version of a selection cohort design (Cook & Campbell, 1979), also
termed a cohort-longitudinal design with adjacent or consecutive cohorts (Olweus
& Alsaker, 1991), was chosen. This version is thoroughly described in Dan Olweus
work (e.g., Olweus, 2004, 2005; Olweus & Alsaker, 1991). The description and
discussion of the design here is partly based on Olweus work. However, in the
present study the design was extended even further to include pupils from Grades
510 at each of the four times of data collection.
Using this design, we do not compare each cohort before the intervention with the
same cohort after the intervention. Instead, the fifth-grade cohorts before the
intervention are compared with the fifth-grade cohorts one year (or more) later.
Obviously these are not the same pupils. This enables a fifth-grade cohort already
exposed to the program to be compared with a fifth-grade cohort that has not.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

720 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

A key aspect of the design is that the cohorts compared are of the same age. The
subjects in a cohort were attending a particular grade level at the same time and were
approximately the same age. Thus, in general, data from cohorts participating in the
program were compared to a similarly-aged cohort assessed in a previous year before
the schools had joined the program.
The comparison of equivalent age groups is necessary for ruling out the effects of
age or maturation on the results (Olweus, 2005). As illustrated in the Appendix,
changes took place in all the four variables studied as a function of age. When eliminating age in this manner, it is important to review the time of the year when the
outcome variables are measured so as to avoid possible seasonal variations in the
variables measured (Olweus, 2005).
Since a cohort design does not automatically rule out selection (Cook &
Campbell, 1979), the design will gain additional strength if the data show that intervention and non-intervention groups do not systematically differ with regard to reliably measured third variables that might be considered possible mediators of an
intervention effect. Therefore, the cohorts were analysed for three measurements of
aggressiveness: reactive, proactive affiliation, and proactive power. Obviously such
measurements cannot rule out selection threats associated with unmeasured variables; it can only rule out some particular types of selection bias.
Each cohort was allocated a unique label, which was actually the grade they were
in at T1, whether they had been included in the sample at that time or not. Table 1
presents the grades the different cohorts were attending at the time point(s) when
they were included in the sample. Consequently, Cohort 2 represents pupils in
Grade 2 at T1, even though they were not included in the sample until T4 when
they were in Grade 5. Cohorts 5a, 6a, and 7a represent pupils in Grade 8 at T4, T3,
and T2 respectively. All cohorts included at T1 served as the baseline against which
same-aged cohorts were compared at successive data collection points. Some of
these cohorts acted as intervention groups in later data collection activities. This was
the case, for example, with Cohort 5, which was the fifth-grade baseline group at T1
and the sixth- and seventh-grade intervention group at T2 and T3, respectively.
Cohorts 7 and 10 ended primary and secondary school in 2002 and therefore served
as baseline groups only. The other cohorts at T1 acted as intervention groups at one
or two later data collection points. However, as intervention groups they were
compared against the same-aged baseline cohort from T1. Six of the cohorts
(Cohorts 2, 3, 4, 5a, 6a, and 7a) only served as intervention groups.

Measures
The questionnaire comprised scales assessing pupils behavioural problems. The key
information required related to disobedience, off-task behaviour, and bullying.
Disobedience. A scale consisting of seven items was employed to estimate disobedience (Vaaland & Roland, submitted). These items were designed to assess pupil

Behavioural Problems
Table 1.

Grades (G) of each cohort included in the sample

T1

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Primary schools
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
Cohort 4
Cohort 5
Cohort 6
Cohort 7
Secondary school
Cohort 5a
Cohort 6a
Cohort 7a
Cohort 8
Cohort 9
Cohort 10

721

G5b
G6
G7

G8
G9
G10

T2

G5
G6
G7

G8
G9
G10

T3

G5
G6
G7

G8
G9
G10

T4

G5
G6
G7

G8
G9
G10

Cohorts are named after the grade (G) they attended at T1. Cohorts 5a, 6a, and 7a indicate the
grade levels at intervention of pupils currently at secondary school; these are not equivalent to
Cohorts 5, 6, and 7, although there is some overlap since the secondary school had recruited pupils
from one of the primary schools.

behaviour that pupils know conflicts with teacher instructions or standards, and
were formulated as statements starting with I break the rules in class by
followed by seven different situations, such as talking to other pupils without
permission, annoying teachers, disturbing other pupils, etc.
Off-task behaviour. Pupils were assessed for off-task behaviour using a slightly
modified version of a scale previously used by Bru (2006) and Thuen and Bru
(2004), for example. The modified version contained five positively stated items
designed to measure how well pupils concentrate on classroom activities and how
smoothly they changed from one activity to another when directed to by the teacher.
Bullying. Two scales covering bullying (Roland & Idse, 2001) were included in
the questionnaire; one comprised four items about being bullied, while the other
four dealt with bullying others. Pupils were supposed to reveal how often they had
been bullied and how often they had bullied other pupils at school during the
relevant school year.
Aggression. This was measured by three scales developed by Roland and Idse
(2001) reporting reactive aggression (ReAgg), power-related proactive aggression
(ProPow), and affiliation-related proactive aggression (ProAff). The ReAgg scale
comprised five items describing situations that might result in a person becoming
angry. To estimate ProPow, a four-item scale was employed listing situations that

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

722 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

might allow some people to experience power over someone else. Similarly, the
ProAff scale comprised four items describing aggression towards a third party
intended to achieve affiliation with someone.
The items concerning disobedience, off-task behaviour, and aggression were
formulated as statements. Alternatives were YES, yes, no, and NO,
implying Agree completely, Agree, Disagree, and Totally disagree. Items
were scored 0, 1, 2, or 3, respectively. Bullying-related items were formulated as
questions about the frequency of being bullied and of bullying others in the school
year under review. The possible responses were Never, Sometimes, About
every week, and About every day, scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Each scale
score was the mean score of the items included.
Teacher rating. Class teachers were asked to respond to two questions and two statements about each of their pupils. The questions were: How often during the current
school year has the pupil bullied other pupils at school? and How often during the
current school year has the pupil been a victim of bullying? The alternatives were
Never, Sometimes, About each week, and About every day, scored 0, 1, 2,
and 3 respectively. The results for About each week and About each day were
pooled and have been reported as indicative of severe bullying. The two statements
to be assessed were: During lessons the pupil interferes with teaching and During
lessons the pupil hardly ever concentrates on schoolwork. Alternatives were Totally
disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Agree completely, scored 0, 1, 2, and 3.
Statistical Analyses
Factor analyses were conducted to examine whether or not the items included in the
behavioural scales revealed four distinct constructs. Reliability testing (Cronbachs
alpha) and analyses of variance (ANOVA) were also conducted. Post-hoc procedures
(LSD) were activated when significant differences were detected. The effect sizes (d;
Cohen, 1988) were computed. One of the general guidelines for interpreting the d
value states that a d of .20 is small, .50 is moderate, while .80 is large. However,
Cohens interpretations need to be adapted to the theoretical considerations related
to any differences or changes. Statistical analyses made use of SPSS (Norusis, 2004).
Reliability and Validity
The four scales measuring problem behaviour are well established and have been
utilized in previous studies (Bru, 2006; Roland & Idse, 2001; Vaaland & Roland,
submitted). Although it had been used before, the scale measuring disobedience was
not included in the same studies as the measurements of bullying and off-task
behaviour. A principle components analysis incorporating varimax rotation of the
items included in the four scales was therefore carried out. An eigenvalue criterion of
1.00 yielded a four-factor solution, where no item included in a factor had a loading
of less than .63 for that factor, or one above .32 for any of the other factors.

Behavioural Problems

723

The consistency of the scales was evaluated by Cronbachs alpha (Cronbach,

1951). The internal consistency varied from .74 to .89 for the different scales and
time points. Thus, the internal consistency proved to be fairly good to very good
(Brown, 1970).

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Results
The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 2, revealing significant differences
among cohorts at different time points for most of the grades and most of the four
types of problem behaviour. Table 3 presents the results for disobedience, off-task
behaviour, bullies, and victims of bullying for each grade at T1T4. Although not all
the results in Table 2 indicate a significant difference between cohorts at the different points in time, the results for all cohorts in the same grade and for all four types
of problem behaviour are presented in Table 3 in order to provide a full understanding of the results. The means and standard deviations of disobedience, off-task
behaviour, bullies, and victims of bullying can be found in Table 3.
Overall the results showed a reduction in disobedience and off-task behaviour.
However, the results were not significant for all grades. The results for bullies and
victims of bullying were somewhat weaker. Secondary school pupils (Grades 810)
revealed no significant reduction in bullies or victims of bullying. Furthermore, the
decrease in problem behaviour differed between grades. In terms of effect size,
Grade 7 pupils reported the largest total reduction between T1 and T4 due to a d
value of .39 or greater for the four areas of problem behaviour. Grade 9 pupils
reported the smallest overall reduction, attributable to a d value of .35 or less. The
differences in the results for the four different areas of problem behaviour call for a
more detailed presentation.
Disobedience
The main tendency in the results for disobedience in the different grades was a
reduction from T1 to T2 that was subsequently either sustained or strengthened
through T3 and T4. A marked reduction was noted between T1 and T4 in most,
Table 2.

Results of ANOVA for Grades 510 for the four types of problem behaviour
Disobedience

Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10

df

3
3
3
3
3
3

1.422
4.786
5.810
5.021
2.601
8.161

.235
.003
.001
.002
.052
.000

Off-task behaviour
df

3 1.811
3 13.978
3 5.591
3 8.750
3 3.540
3 6.089

Bullies

Victims

df

.144
.000
.001
.000
.015
.000

3
3
3
3
3
3

4.535
8.660
7.687
3.655
0.070
0.662

.004
.000
.000
.013
.976
.575

df

3 1.656
3 1.994
3 4.867
3 10.174
3 3.715
3 1.671

p
.175
.114
.002
.000
.012
.172

724 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

Table 3.

Number of subjects, mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes (Cohens d) for
the four types of problem behaviour at four time points (T) for Grades 510

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Disobedience

Grade 5
T1 Cohort 5 (n = 118)
T2 Cohort 4 (n = 126)
T3 Cohort 3 (n = 151)
T4 Cohort 2 (n = 143)
d T1T2
d T1T4
Grade 6
T1 Cohort 6 (n = 152)
T2 Cohort 5 (n = 129)
T3 Cohort 4 (n = 130)
T4 Cohort 3 (n = 140)
d T1T2
d T1T4
Grade 7
T1 Cohort 7 (n = 147)
T2 Cohort 6 (n = 160)
T3 Cohort 5 (n = 134)
T4 Cohort 4 (n = 140)
d T1T2
d T1T4
Grade 8
T1 Cohort 8 (n = 123)
T2 Cohort 7a (n = 128)
T3 Cohort 6a (n = 112)
T4 Cohort 5a (n = 123)
d T1T2
d T1T4
Grade 9
T1 Cohort 9 (n = 95)
T2 Cohort 8 (n = 128)
T3 Cohort 7a (n = 112)
T4 Cohort 6a (n = 122)
d T1T2
d T1T4

Off-task
behaviour

Bullies

Victims

SD

SD

SD

SD

0.75
0.68
0.64
0.61*

0.55
0.57
0.54
0.56
0.13
0.25

0.58
0.59
0.48
0.52

0.48
0.49
0.45
0.47
0.02
0.13

0.29
0.31
0.21*
0.17*

0.32
0.43
0.33
0.38
0.03
0.40

0.54
0.53
0.43
0.44

0.49
0.53
0.48
0.54
0.02
0.19

0.83
0.66*
0.60**
0.66*

0.58
0.57
0.53
0.57
0.30
0.30

0.85
0.55**
0.55**
0.56**

0.52
0.43
0.53
0.45
0.60
0.60

0.36
0.28
0.17**
0.21**

0.38
0.43
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.44

0.46
0.50
0.38
0.39

0.46
0.57
0.47
0.46
0.08
0.15

0.97
0.82*
0.71**
0.73**

0.62
0.59
0.50
0.62
0.25
0.39

0.81
0.72
0.70
0.57**

0.51
0.48
0.53
0.47
0.18
0.49

0.31
0.32
0.30
0.15**

0.32
0.39
0.40
0.28
0.03
0.39

0.44
0.39
0.44
0.24*

0.51
0.52
0.52
0.46
0.10
0.41

0.99
0.83*
0.84
0.67**

0.66
0.57
0.68
0.64
0.26
0.50

0.86
0.77
0.67*
0.54**

0.53
0.52
0.52
0.46
0.17
0.65

0.32
0.25
0.41
0.25

0.49
0.33
0.60
0.49
0.17
0.17

0.30
0.21
0.57*
0.32

0.57
0.34
0.74
0.40
0.20
0.04

1.07
1.17
0.97
0.95

0.78
0.69
0.61
0.72
0.14
0.16

0.97
0.98
0.86
0.79*

0.53
0.55
0.60
0.49
0.02
0.35

0.34
0.32
0.35
0.33

0.55
0.48
0.59
0.49
0.02
0.02

0.26
0.26
0.36
0.44*

0.39
0.46
0.55
0.55
0.00
0.29

Behavioural Problems

725

Table 3. (Continued)

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Disobedience

Grade 10
T1 Cohort 10 (n = 112)
T2 Cohort 9 (n = 99)
T3 Cohort 8 (n = 149)
T4 Cohort 7a (n = 124)
d T1T2
d T1T4

Off-task
behaviour

Bullies

Victims

SD

SD

SD

SD

1.38
1.17
1.03**
0.94**

0.78
0.81
0.69
0.64
0.26
0.62

1.15
0.95*
0.94*
0.84**

0.59
0.56
0.54
0.57
0.35
0.52

0.35
0.41
0.38
0.31

0.49
0.55
0.60
0.56
0.12
0.08

0.35
0.27
0.24
0.24

0.60
0.34
0.40
0.34
0.17
0.23

For all four measures a reduction in score indicates an improvement. The effect size for T1T2 is
included to give reference for the teacher reports in Table 6. *p < .05; **p < .001. The
identification of a significant difference implies a significant difference from the corresponding
grade at T1.

but not all, grades. The mean scores and ANOVA results indicated that the largest
reduction was for Grade 10 pupils (F[1,232] = 22.39, p = .000). In classification
terms (Cohen, 1988), the d value of .62 indicates a moderate effect. Grade 9 pupils
presented the smallest effect (F[1,252] = 1.30, p = .255) with a d value of .16, which
is lower than the .20 Cohen considers to indicate a small effect. The Grade 9 pupils
results were the only results that did not present an effect, according to Cohens
classification. It should be noted that the Grade 9 pupils results revealed marginal,
non-significant differences between time points (Table 2). Similarly, Grade 5 pupils
did not report significant differences between time points. Nevertheless, the effect
size between T1 and T4 was .25.
Off-Task Behaviour
The reduction in off-task behaviour was the greatest reduction in the results overall.
The general trend was a reduction in the mean score from T1 to T2 and a sustained
or strengthened effect at T3 and T4, although not significant for all grades at T2.
The effect size for four of the grades was around or over the .50 Cohen considered to
be a moderate effect. Among pupils at different grade levels, those in Grade 8
revealed the largest effect between T1 and T4 for off-task behaviour (F[1,242] =
24.84, p = .000, d = .65).
Bullies
All the primary school grades (57) revealed a significant reduction from T1 to T4,
and an effect size of .39.44. However, none of the secondary school grades (810)
revealed a significant reduction although the results presented in Table 2 revealed

726 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

significant differences between grade 8 cohorts at different time points. Grade 6
pupils reported the largest reduction [F(1, 290) = 12.84, p =.000, d= 0.44)].

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Victims of bullying
Overall, the results for victims of bullying revealed the smallest effect of the four
types of problem behaviour. The results of the ANOVA presented in Table 2 indicate significant differences between time points for Grades 7, 8, and 9. However,
only Grade 7 pupils reported a significant reduction from T1 to T4 (F[1,285] =
11.57, p = .001, d = .41). Although Grade 10 pupils presented an effect size of .23,
the results did not indicate a significant effect at the 5% level (F[1,234] = 2.76, p =
.098). The effect indicated by the d value resulted from a marked reduction in the
standard deviation from .60 to .34. Grade 9 pupils at T4 reported an increase
in victims of bullying (F[1,212] = 7.36, p = .007, d = .29) compared to the cohort in
the corresponding grade at T1. Grade 8 pupils at T3 (Cohort 6a) that is, pupils in
the same class groups as those in Grade 9 at T4 also reported results that differed
from the other cohorts at the same age. This might indicate a cohort with a higher
level of bullying than other cohorts. The mean score for this cohort at Grade 8 (T3)
and Grade 9 (T4) indicated a reduction in bullying from .57 (SD = .74) to .44 (SD
= .52), while a d value of .21 indicated a small effect. The reduction contains both
maturation and possible implementation effects.
Aggression
The cohorts were examined for significant differences between the intervention
groups and the non-intervention groups, at the same grade levels, with regard to the
three types of aggression. Table 4 presents the ANOVA results. There were significant differences in reactive aggression (ReAgg) between cohorts at Grades 6, 7, and
8, and significant differences in power-related proactive aggression (ProPow)
between cohorts at Grade 8. Analysis revealed no significant differences in affiliation-related proactive aggression (ProAff) at any grade. Post-hoc analysis was
conducted in order to reveal any significant differences between grades that could
uncover significant differences between the non-intervention cohorts and the intervention cohorts.
The results of post-hoc analysis of significant ANOVA results (see Table 4) are
presented in Table 5. At Grade 6 the non-treatment group (Cohort 6) was significantly different from all the treatment groups (Cohorts 3, 4, and 5), showing lower
levels of ReAgg than the intervention groups. The non-intervention group at Grade
7 (Cohort 7) reported a significantly lower level of ReAgg than the corresponding
cohort at T3 (Cohort 5) and T4 (Cohort 4). Similarly, for Grade 8 pupils the treatment group at T4 (Cohort 5a) reported a significantly higher level of ReAgg than the
non-intervention group (Cohort 8). As far as ProPow is concerned, the Grade 8
intervention group at T4 (Cohort 5a) presented a significantly higher level of aggression than the non-intervention group (Cohort 8).

Behavioural Problems
Table 4.

ANOVA results for Grades 510 for three types of aggression; F values, degrees of
freedom, and significant results are shown
Proactive aggression
power

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Reactive aggression

Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10

727

Proactive aggression
affiliation

df

df

df

3
3
3
3
3
3

2.218
8.746
3.625
5.610
1.238
1.427

.085
.000
.013
.001
.295
.234

3
3
3
3
3
3

1.483
2.159
0.865
3.668
1.603
2.288

.218
.092
.459
.012
.188
.078

3
3
3
3
3
3

0.059
2.449
0.556
2.230
0.654
1.979

.981
.063
.644
.084
.586
.116

Thus, the level of aggression did not turn out to be higher for non-treatment
groups than for the corresponding treatment groups. On the contrary, treatment
groups reported a higher level of aggression, although they scored lower on the
behavioural measurements than the non-treatment groups.

Table 5.

Means and standard deviations for reactive aggression and power-related proactive
aggression for grades that reported significant differences
Reactive aggression
(ReAgg)
M

SD

Grade 6
T1 Cohort 6 (n = 152)
T2 Cohort 5 (n = 129)
T3 Cohort 4 (n = 130)
T4 Cohort 3 (n = 139)

1.83
1.99*
2.15**
2.14**

0.60
0.62
0.61
0.62

Grade 7
T1 Cohort 7 (n = 147)
T2 Cohort 6 (n = 160)
T3 Cohort 5 (n = 134)
T4 Cohort 4 (n = 140)

1.87
1.95
2.02*
2.10*

0.60
0.67
0.57
0.67

Grade 8
T1 Cohort 8 (n = 123)
T2 Cohort 7a (n = 127)
T3 Cohort 6a (n = 112)
T4 Cohort 5a (n = 123)

1.81
1.95
1.87
2.12**

0.66
0.58
0.71
0.55

Proactive aggression
power (ProAgg)
M

SD

2.42
2.56
2.45
2.66*

0.73
0.55
0.64
0.55

*p < .05; **p < .001. The identification of a significant difference implies a significant difference
from the corresponding grade at T1. A low score indicates a low level of aggression.

728 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Teacher Ratings
The results of the teachers ratings of bullying, disruption, and off-task behaviour are
presented in Table 6, and indicate a reduction both in severe cases of victims of
bullying and in the number of bullies. Likewise, there is a reduction in disruptive
and off-task behaviour. Although the questions and statements answered by the
teachers are not comparable to the pupil measurements, it is nevertheless interesting
to note that the teachers, just like the pupils, reported a reduction in all of the four
areas of problem behaviour. It should be noted that, since there was a one-year gap
between the two data collection points, teachers did not assess exactly the same
pupils. Pupils in Grades 7 and 10 at the time of the first data collection were not
included in the second one, while pupils in Grades 1 and 8 at the time of the second
Table 6.

Mean scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes (Cohens d) of teacher ratings of the
four types of problem behaviour at two time points
Disturbance

Off-task
behaviour

SD

SD

SD

SD

Grade 5
T1 Cohort 5 (n = 149)
T2 Cohort 4 (n = 146)
d T1T2

0.68
0.51

0.91
0.89
0.19

0.77
0.59

0.94
0.85
0.20

0.38
0.35

0.63
0.55
0.05

0.35
0.40

0.57
0.51
0.09

Grade 6
T1 Cohort 6 (n = 190)
T2 Cohort 5 (n = 167)
d T1T2

0.44
0.34

0.88
0.63
0.14

0.70
0.55

0.96
0.79
0.17

0.26
0.31

0.55
0.57
0.09

0.24
0.25

0.48
0.49
0.02

Grade 7
T1 Cohort 7 (n = 196)
T2 Cohort 6 (n = 182)
d T1T2

0.60
0.42

0.91
0.83
0.21

0.73
0.74

1.00
0.93
0.01

0.49
0.17

0.72
0.41
0.56

0.40
0.16

0.59
0.37
0.50

Grade 8
T1 Cohort 8 (n = 141)
T2 Cohort 7a (n = 132)
d T1T2

0.61
0.39

0.88
0.73
0.27

1.12
0.56

1.10
0.84
0.58

0.27
0.19

0.56
0.45
0.16

0.30
0.17

0.52
0.41
0.28

Grade 9
T1 Cohort 9 (n = 115)
T2 Cohort 8 (n = 149)
d T1T2

0.74
0.62

1.01
0.90
0.13

1.01
0.94

1.14
1.06
0.06

0.25
0.20

0.53
0.53
0.09

0.23
0.15

0.44
0.39
0.19

Grade 10
T1 Cohort 10 (n = 107)
T2 Cohort 9 n = 117)
d T1T2

0.74
0.42

0.96
0.75
0.37

1.26
0.75

1.08
1.05
0.48

0.18
0.08

0.43
0.27
0.29

0.19
0.13

0.42
0.36
0.15

Bullies

For all four measures, a reduction in score indicates an improvement.

Victims

Behavioural Problems

729

data collection had not been included in the first sample. This calls for caution to be
exercised in interpreting the results. The teacher ratings included Grades 510.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Discussion
One of the main purposes of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Respect
program with regard to the prevention and reduction of problem behaviour. A
cohort longitudinal design was employed to examine any possible intervention
effects. According to Cook and Campbell (1979), selection bias and history are key
issues that might affect interpretation: these design issues will be discussed first.
Olweus (2004) argues that a selection cohort design provides partial protection
against selection bias because several of the cohorts serve both as baseline groups at
one time point and as intervention groups at one or more different time points. The
considerable advantage of this aspect of the design, Olweus (2004, 2005) argues, is
that a possible bias in the composition of the cohorts would operate in different
directions in the two sets of comparisons, thus rendering it difficult to achieve
intervention effects. There was no evidence of any such selection bias in the results
of the Respect program.
Furthermore, the sample consists of pupils in successive cohorts where the modal
age of the pupils was separated by only one year. In addition, the majority of the
pupils, especially in the primary schools, had been attending the same school for
several years. In Norway classes contain the same pupils from year to year both in
primary and secondary school. Classes also normally have the same class teacher for
several yearsfor example, from Grades 14 or from Grades 57. Grade retention
when pupils are kept back to repeat a year of schoolingis not used, and rates of
suspension and dropout are almost zero in primary and secondary schools. Any
changes in class composition are normally restricted to pupils moving. There is
therefore reason to assume that changes due to alterations in the composition of a
class were minimal. No systematic changes took place in the local school system to
which the participating schools belonged. Therefore, there were reasonable grounds
for assuming that members of the different cohorts had not been exposed to any
unusual conditions that might affect their behaviour.
Moreover, as the non-intervention groups did not demonstrate higher levels of
any of the three types of aggression than the intervention groups at the same grade,
no evidence could be found of selection bias due to systematic differences in the
levels of any of the three types of aggression examined (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
With regard to history, the measurement points were one year apart. Although no
systematic examination of the effects of repeated measures was conducted, it is not
considered likely that measurement points separated by an entire year would result
in systematic changes in the pupils reports. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the effect
of history would result in a reduction in problem behaviour rather than in an
increase (Olweus, 2005). That said, it is obvious that a non-equivalent, nonintervention control group could strengthen the designsomething not possible due
to a national government initiative for anti-bullying work in schools nationwide.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

730 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

There were a number of reasons for choosing a selection cohort design in preference to a straightforward longitudinal design in the present study, although conducting a straightforward prepost quasi-experimental design with follow-up might be
considered a possibility. One of the key research questions concerns the possible
existence of time-related change, and in particular any effects associated with the
intervention program. Time-lagged contrasts (Olweus & Alsaker, 1991) between
age-equivalent groups were used. In this analysis, the measurement point was
allowed to vary while the grade was held constant. The main reason for using timelagged contrasts between cohorts of the same age rather than a longitudinal comparison to evaluate the effects of the intervention program was that changes could be
expected in all four behavioural measurements in the study as a function of age (see
Appendix). In such a situation, longitudinal comparisons between different time
points would reflect both age-related (maturation) changes and any potential effects
of the intervention program.
The size of the sample and the small number of classes included in the pilot
implementation limited the opportunities for analysis. The unit of analysis was the
cohort. Since classroom leadership was one of the main tools for the prevention and
reduction of problem behaviour, it can be argued that the class was a natural level of
analysis. On the other hand, one can argue that the school is the natural level of
analysis for a whole school intervention (Sprague et al., 2001). However, the level
and quality of implementation may vary within a school. In a larger sample it would
have been possible to study differences in implementation between classrooms as
well as differences in pupil, classroom, and school effects.
The evidence resulting from this evaluative study indicates that a reduction was
achieved in disobedience and off-task behaviour between T1 and T2, while this
decrease was sustained or strengthened through T3 and T4 across all cohorts for
most of the grades. The reduction indicated small to moderate effect sizes for
disobedience and off-task behaviour according to d value. Additionally, a reduction
in bullies and victims of bullying was found. However, there was no reduction in
bullying at the secondary school grade levels.
The main findings indicating that the intervention was associated with a reduction
in the four types of problem behaviour were consistent with previous research on
whole-school approaches to each of these problem areas (Luiselli, Putnam, &
Handler, 2005; Roland et al., submitted), as well as with previous research into the
interventions on which the Respect program builds (O Moore & Minton, 2002;
Roland, 1999; Roland et al., 2003). However, none of those interventions were
followed for three years.
The teachers reports on pupil behaviour at T1 to T2 support the findings taken
from pupils self-reportsthey reveal overall decreases in all four types of problem
behaviour. However, the teachers responded to single questions or statements so any
comparisons to pupils reports based on scales containing several questions or statements should be made with caution.
An interesting feature of the pupils results was that the observed outcome
improved in the period following the initial year. One possible reason might be the

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Behavioural Problems

731

general approach taken by the program. Although aimed at reducing problems with
pupil disobedience, off-task orientation, and bullying, the program was not primarily
directed at the pupils. Its aim was to change pupil behaviour by strengthening adult
skills and management, mainly through system-level changes aiming for sustainable
change. Changes at the school level are demanding (Midthassel & Ertesvg, submitted). Consequently, some time may pass before changes manifest in pupil behaviour.
On the other hand, by altering teacher behaviour changes might not be limited solely
to the pupils attending school during the program year, but could benefit all future
pupils as well, as long as the changes are sustained. The schools maintained the
intervention in the second and third years on their own. At that time, there was
reason to believe that they had more or less fully adopted the principles of the
program. Hence, an evaluation of the program only at the end of the first program
year might falsely conclude that there were no or very few program effects when, in
fact, there were effects. However, it is too early to identify effects at the pupil level.
One implication of the results might be that evaluating whole school approaches
focusing on the roles and responsibilities of the adults in the schools requires more
than just one year to identify program effects fully.
Determining whether longer-term results have been achieved should be one of the
critical factors in program evaluation. Previous research has indicated that intervention results have, at best, been growing weaker over time (Ager & Cole, 1991;
Roland & Munthe, 1997). The results associated with the Respect program were
promising at least as promising as the results of programs targeting one type of
problem behaviour (Nordahl, Gravrok, Knudsmoen, Larsen, & Rrnes, 2006;
Roland et al., submitted; Vitario, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 1999).
Based on previous research (Midthassel, 2006; Midthassel & Ertesvg, submitted)
and studies of the implementation of this program (Ertesvg, 2005; Ertesvg et al.,
submitted), there is reason to believe that the emphasis placed on creating a
common understanding of and commitment to the principles among staff was one
factor influencing the success of the intervention. Therefore, perhaps some
programs build on a manual without sufficiently emphasising the importance of
understanding their theoretical and empirical foundations (e.g., the four key principles of the Respect program). Programs are consequently in danger of becoming
merely a list of things to do. A program does not become a living tool for schools to
develop; neither will schools work any smarter (Hargreaves, 2001). In fact, they will
take on a heavier work load, and staff members will be in danger of burning themselves out (Ertesvg, 1994).
The Respect program might benefit pupils academic performance. Reducing
pupil disobedience and/or off-task behaviour should increase the amount of time
teachers and pupils are able to spend on classroom instruction and learning and, in
turn, facilitate skills acquisition (Lentz, 1988; Lewis, 2001; Luiselli et al., 2005;
Rydell & Henricsson, 2004; Thuen & Bru, 2004). Time redirected from managing
misbehaviour among pupils in a classroom setting should strengthen the learning
environment and eventually benefit pupil outcome. In the program, classroom
leadership was one of the key factors in reducing disobedience and off-task behaviour

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

732 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

at the classroom level. According to Roland and Galloway (2004), classroom leadership is also key to reducing bullying. Additionally, considerable evidence supports the
beneficial effects of a close teacherpupil relationship on childrens academic
outcomes (Hughes, Cavell, & Jackson, 1999; Pianta, 1999). The effect of such a relationship might prove most beneficial for pupils who face the risks associated with
academic problems.
A primary value of this study lies in demonstrating that what happens in schools
and classrooms can be improved by applying a systematic, consistent, broad,
school-wide program addressing key types of problem behaviour. This contrasts
with the more common interventions addressing improvements in the behaviour of
targeted pupils. Such an outcome does not imply that individual pupils will not
require specific interventions on occasions (Walker & Shinn, 2002). Rather, the
implementation of whole school approaches to preventing and reducing problem
behaviour may reduce the need for individual interventions and broaden the
involvement of school personnel in prevention rather than in intervention measures
(Marr et al., 2002).
The results of this research will inform discussion about broad school-wide
programs in association with authoritative adult behaviour that is consistent across
classrooms and over time in response to undesirable behaviour. The primary importance of the study is its demonstration of improved behaviour as a result of improved
school management, teacher collaboration, and teachers management in and
between classrooms. This research has demonstrated the effectiveness of a program
emphasizing school-wide efforts to maintain similar attitudes, behavioural standards,
collaboration, and shared understanding and commitment among staff in the
prevention and reduction of problem behaviour. Successful preventative and curative programs in schools should be continuous and address a wide number of behaviour types. Accordingly, a broad whole school approach to preventing and reducing
problem behaviour does seem reasonable.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Professor Erling Roland for allowing us to draw upon his research
and development work in order to write this article. He has also been involved in the
development and delivery of the Respect program. Several colleagues at the Centre
for Behavioural Research have participated in different ways in developing and delivering the program. We are thankful for their contributions to the basics of this article. We are also most grateful to the schools in which we have been working with the
Respect program, and to the Local Educational Board of Oslo. The Respect
program is partly funded by the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training,
and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
Note
1.

The program was run under the name Connect in the ConnectOSLO project.

Behavioural Problems

733

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

References
Adams, R. E., Bukowski, W. M., & Bagwell, C. (2005). Stability of aggression during early adolescence as moderated by reciprocated friendship status and friends aggression. International
Journal of Behavioural Development, 29, 139145.
Ager, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1991). A review of cognitive-behavioural interventions for children and
adolescents with behavioural disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 276287.
Bear, G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: Prevention, correction and long term
social development. Educational and Child Psychology, 15, 1539.
Brophy, J. E. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: Guildford.
Brown, F. G. (1970). Principles of educational and psychological testing. Chicago, IL: The Dryden
Press Inc.
Bru, E. (2006). Factors associated with disruptive behaviour in the classroom. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 50, 2343.
Bru, E., Murberg, T. A., & Stephens, P. (2001). Social support, negative life events and student
misbehaviour among young Norwegian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 715727.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coie, J. D., & Jacobs, M. R. (1993). The role of social context in the prevention of conduct
disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 263275.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.
de la Barra, F., Toledo, V., & Rodriguez, J. (2005). Prediction of behavioural problems in Chilean
schoolchildren. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 35, 227243.
Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D.
Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201218).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eriksen, N. (2001). Forebygging av atferdsproblemer i frste klasse ved hjelp av et strukturert opplringsog veiledningsprogram for lrere [Prevention of problem behaviour in grade one through
structured in-service training for teachers]. Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.
Ertesvg, S. K. (1994). vere lrar: Stress og utbrenning hj lrarar i ungdomsskulen [Stress and burnout among secondary school teachers]. Masters thesis, University of Trondheim, Norway.
Ertesvg, S. K. (2003). ConnectOSLO: Rapport fra gjennomfring og evaluering av pilotprosjektet
skoleret 20022003 [ConnectOSLOa pilot evaluation]. Stavanger, Norway: Centre for
Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger.
Ertesvg, S.K. (2005). Implementering av ConnectOslo-pilot [Implementing ConnectOSLO].
Stavanger, Norway: Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger.
Ertesvg, S. K., Roland, P., Vaaland, G. S., Strksen, S., Veland, J., & Flack, T. (submitted).
Challenging continuationSchools implemetation of the Respect programme.
Fandrem, H., & Roland, E. (2000). Strategier for lokalt utviklingsarbeid i Samtak [Strategies for
local development in the SAMTAK project]. Skolepsykologi, 35(5), 1932.
Farmer, T. W., Goforth, J. B., Clemmer, J. T., & Thompson, J. H. (2004). School discipline
problems in rural African American early adolescents: Characteristics of students with major,
minor, and no offences. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 317336.
Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: The
researcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5, 513.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitovich, C. E., & Baumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing mental disorders in schoolage children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. The Prevention Research Centre for
the Promotion of Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P. Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., et al.
(1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school:
A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 16051611.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

734 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British
Educational Research Journal, 27, 487503.
Hopkins, D., Harris, A., & Jackson, D. (1997). Understanding the schools capacity for development: Growth states and strategies. School Leadership and Management, 17, 401411.
Hughes, J. N. (2002). Authoritative teaching: Tipping the balance in favour of school versus peer
effects. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 485492.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Jackson, T. (1999). Influence of teacherstudent relationships on
aggressive childrens development: A prospective study. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
28, 173184.
Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Manz, P. H., Costigan, T. E., & Nabors, L. A. (2001). School-based
aggression prevention programs for young children: Current status and implications for
violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 30, 344362.
Lentz, F. E. J. (1988). On-task behavior, academic performance, and classroom disruptions:
Untangling the target selection problem in classroom interventions. School Psychology Review,
17, 243257.
Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students view. Teaching
and Teaching Education, 17, 307319.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service
needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1991). Differences and
similarities between children, mothers, and teachers as informants on disruptive behavior.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 7595.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Handler, M. W. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour support
and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183198.
Manger, T., Eikeland, O. J., & Asbjrnsen, A. (2002). Effects of social-cognitive training on
students empathy. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 60, 8288.
Marr, M. B., Audett, B., White, R., Ellis, E., & Algozzine, B. (2002). School-wide discipline and
classroom ecology. Special Services in the Schools, 18, 5573.
Midthassel, U. V. (2006). Creating a shared understanding of classroom management. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 34, 365383.
Midthassel, U. V., & Ertesvg, S. K. (submitted). Schools implementing Zero: The process of
implementing an anti-bullying programme in six Norwegian compulsory schools.
Mitchem, K., Young, R. K., West, R. P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM: A classwide peerassisted self-management program for general education classrooms. Education and Treatment
of Children, 24, 111140.
Munthe, E., & Midthassel, U. V. (2001). Peer learning groups for teachers. A Norwegian innovation. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 11, 303316.
Nordahl, T., Gravrok, ., Knudsmoen, H., Larsen, T. M. B., & Rrnes, K. (2006). Forebyggende
innsatser i skolen [Prevention in school]. Oslo, Norway: Sosial-og helsedirektoratet og Utdanningsdirektoratet.
Norusis, M. (2004). Guide to data analysis. Chicago: Prentice Hall, Inc.
O Moore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2002). Tackling violence in schools: A broad approach. Retrieved
April 15, 2006, from http://www.gold.ac.uk/connect/evaluationnorway.html
Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 852875.
Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation
issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.),
Bullying in school (pp. 1336). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program. Psychology, Crime and Law, 4, 389402.

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Behavioural Problems

735

Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F. D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study with
hierarchical data. In D. Magnusson, L. Bergman, G. Ruidinger, & B. Trestad (Eds.),
Problems and methods in longitudinal research (pp. 107132). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ortega, R., del-Rey, R., & Mora-Merchan, J. A. (2004). SAVE model: An anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in school (pp. 167185).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later adjustment: Are low-accepted children
at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357389.
Pepler, D., & Rubin, K. (Eds.). (1991). The development and treatment of childhood aggression.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Reid, J. B. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 243262.
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (Eds.). (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Roland, E. (1999). School influences on bullying. Stavanger, Norway: Rebell Forlag.
Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15
years. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135143.
Roland, E., Bjrnsen, G., & Mandt, G. (2003). Taking back adult control. In P. K. Smith (Ed.),
Violence in schools: The response in Europe (pp. 200216). London: Routledge.
Roland, E., Bru, E., Midthassel, U. V., & Vaaland, G. S. (submitted). Anti-bullying efforts in
Norway 20012004: Effects of the National Manifesto Against Bullying and the Zero
program.
Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2002). Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Research, 44,
299312.
Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2004). Can we reduce bullying by improving classroom management? ACPP Occasional Papers: Bullying in Schools, 23, 3540.
Roland, E., & Idse, T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 446462.
Roland, E., & Munthe, E. (1997). The 1996 Norwegian program for preventing and managing
bullying in schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 233247.
Roland, E., & Vaaland, G. S. (2005). Teachers guide to the Zero Anti-Bullying Program. Stavanger,
Norway: Centre for Behavioural Research.
Rydell, A. M., & Henricsson, L. (2004). Elementary school teachers strategies to handle externalising classroom behaviour: A study of relations between perceived control, teacher orientation
and strategy preferences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 93102.
Sprague, J. R., Walker, H. M., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2001).
Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 24,
495511.
Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural
elementary students, parents, and teachers perceptions of bullying. American Journal of
Health Behavior, 26, 266277.
Thuen, E., & Bru, E. (2004). Coping styles and emotional and behavioural problems among
Norwegian grade 9 students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 493510.
Toby, J. (1993). Everyday school violence: How disorder fuels it. American Educator, 17(4),
49.
Vaaland, G. S., & Roland, E. (submitted). Aggression, performance and disobedience.
Vitario, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Prevention of school dropout through the
reduction of disruptive behaviours and school failure in elementary school. Journal of School
Psychology, 37, 205226.

736 S. K. Ertesvg & G. S. Vaaland

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA] at 13:53 03 April 2015

Walker, H. M., Golly, A., McLane, J. Z., & Kimmich, M. (2005). The Oregon First Step to
Success replication initiative: Statewise results of an evaluation of the programs impact.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 163172.
Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve
integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools.
In M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior
problems: Prevention and remedial approaches (pp. 126). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Appendix
The scales used in the study have formed part of representative nation-wide surveys
conducted in Norwegian schools in 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004; the results of the
2001 survey are presented in Table A1. The survey was conducted at 50 randomly
selected Norwegian schools. The nationwide study comprised pupils in Grades 510.
The results showed an increase in disobedience, off-task behaviour, and the
number of bullies year on year. However, the increase was not significant between
one grade and the next for bullies, other than for Grades 6 to 7. In addition, an
insignificant decrease occurred between Grades 9 and 10. Likewise, pupils reported
a decrease in victims of bullying from one grade to the next in most grades. This was
significant only from Grades 7 to 8 and Grades 8 to 9.

Table A1.

Mean scores and standard deviations for Grade 510 pupils in a representative
national sample; the significant ANOVA results have been identified
Grade 5
Grade 6
(n = 1383) (n = 1335)
M

Disobedience
Off-task
behaviour
Bullies
Victims

SD

SD

Grade 7
(n = 1227)
M

SD

Grade 8
(n = 1225)
M

SD

Grade 9
(n = 1193)
M

SD

Grade 10
(n = 993)
M

SD

0.69 0.61 0.90** 0.63 1.11** 0.70 1.26** 0.69 1.37** 0.69 1.41
0.70
0.60 0.48 0.75** 0.48 0.88** 0.52 0.93* 0.53 1.02** 0.55 1.11** 0.60
0.29 0.36 0.32
0.42 0.48 0.42

0.37 0.36*
0.46 0.38

0.39 0.37
0.48 0.34*

0.45 0.40
0.49 0.29*

0.45 0.37
0.44 0.28

0.49
0.49

**p < .001; *p < .05. Each significant result is significantly different from the grade below. A low
score indicates a low level of problem behaviour.