Search

The aim of this qualitative study was to address the lack of consensus on the current cyberbullying definition and the limited research on definitions of cyberbullying made by emerging adults in Australia. Six focus groups were conducted with a total of 39 participants aged 18 to 25 years. The focus groups used a semi-structured question protocol to gain a deeper understanding of emerging adults' perceptions, observations, and opinions related to cyberbullying. A thematic analysis revealed that participants perceive cyberbullying to be an extension of traditional bullying comprising similar key components (i.e., intent to harm, repetition, and power imbalance). However, despite a consensus on the components involved, the operationalization of these key components differed among participants depending on whether they adopted a perpetrator, target, or bystander perspective. The current study extends on previous research by focusing on the different perspectives of cyberbullying (i.e., perpetrators, targets, and bystanders) rather than assuming a single perspective, and in turn integrating these perspectives to propose a multifaceted definition of cyberbullying.

This study tests a proposed model of coping outcomes for 290 primary school students in Years 5 and 6 (mean age = 11.50 years) with and without learning disabilities (LDs) within a resource-based framework of coping. Group-administered educational and intelligence tests were used to screen students for LDs. Students also completed a questionnaire measuring coping resources, namely student engagement and internal control as well as outcome measures of coping styles and inability to cope. Structural equation modelling revealed that student engagement promoted the use of productive coping strategies for both groups and that this relationship was partially mediated by internal control. Internal control also partially mediated the relationship between student engagement and non-productive coping for students without LDs. Furthermore, less reliance on productive and greater reliance on non-productive coping strategies, respectively, predicted more of a tendency to not cope or give up in both groups.

Traditionally, students with learning disabilities (LD) have been identified using an aptitude--achievement discrepancy or response to intervention approach. As profiles of the cognitive deficits of discrepancy-defined students with LD have already been developed using these approaches, these deficits can in turn be used to identify LD using the discrepancy approach as a benchmark for convergent validity. Australian Grade 3 (N = 172) students were administered cognitive processing tests to ascertain whether scores in these tests could accurately allocate students into discrepancy-defined groups using discriminant function analysis. Results showed that 77% to 82% of students could be correctly allocated into LD, low achievement, and regular achievement groups using only measures of phonological processing, rapid naming, and verbal memory. Furthermore, verbal memory deficits were found, along with phonological processing and rapid naming deficits, in students that would be designated as low achieving by the discrepancy method. Because a significant discrepancy or lack of response to intervention is a result of cognitive deficits rather than the other way around, it is argued that LD should be identified via cognitive deficits.

Many tests used in educational settings to identify learning difficulties endeavour to pick up only the lowest performers. Yet these tests are generally developed within a Classical Test Theory (CTT) paradigm that assumes that data do not have significant skew. Rasch analysis is more tolerant of skew and was used to validate two newly developed tests of phonological and orthographic processing. These tests were administered to 172 Victorian Grade 3 students so that preliminary chronological norms could be generated. Despite a level of skew that would cause difficulties in a CTT paradigm, the tests were found to be acceptable as per Rasch analysis and, as such, provide additional and important information on poor-performing students. Preliminary norms for the test are provided.

The purpose of this study was to determine the situational and individual factors that influence vulnerability to public stranger violence (PSV) from the perspective of young adults and industry professionals. In total, 25 young adults aged between 18 and 29 years formed one sample and participated in one of four focus groups. The second sample consisted of 10 industry professionals with backgrounds in policing, corrections, and forensic psychology. Each professional participated in an individual semistructured interview. Both samples were asked questions regarding vulnerability and safety in public, where responses were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Multiple themes were identified and categorized into situational and individual factors associated with victimization. Situational factors referred to aspects of the environment that may influence vulnerability to PSV and included visibility, location, and level of support for potential victims. Individual factors referred to aspects about the person that may influence vulnerability to PSV and included unpredictability, ease of target, stereotypes, in-groups versus out-groups, distractions, and personality traits. Although both samples identified similar situational factors, young adults were found to be either unaware of individual factors identified by industry professionals as influencing vulnerability or at least misunderstood some of these factors. This is problematic as young adults may be basing their public behaviors on misinformation that may in fact increase, rather than decrease, vulnerability to PSV. The findings from this study have implications for the design of personal safety programs as well as community-based interventions to reduce vulnerability, the prevalence of PSV, and the negative outcomes associated with PSV, including anxiety and fear of crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]