DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37596.v1
title: The Consequences of School Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Global, 1990-2016
title: Version 1

description: This project seeks to to provide clear and comprehensive answers to the questions that plague researchers on how school violence impacts future student outcomes. To that end, the principal investigators plan to review, organize, and synthesize extant research on consequences of school violence and aggression for perpetrators and victims by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis on longitudinal studies of school violence and outcomes. The primary goal of the current study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the extant longitudinal research literature on the consequences of school violence.
description: The purpose of the project was to find, collect, and synthesize all available published and unpublished research reports that quantitatively analyze the longitudinal relation between a measure of school violence (e.g., physical aggression, bullying) and a later mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)), school achievement (e.g., test scores, grade point average), or crime and delinquency (e.g., violent and property offenses) outcome. Using state-of-the-art systematic review and meta-analysis methods (i.e., combining effect sizes by estimating a random effects model with robust variance estimation) the variation in the relations across studies through multiple-meta-regression modeling were assessed. The results of the meta-analysis provide an empirical synthesis of school violence's consequences, which will allow stakeholders to make informed decisions about appropriate responses in the wake of various forms of school violence.
description: Design and methodology consisted of many approaches. 1) Literature Search and Screening: Several complementary approaches were undertaken: searches of the traditional and gray literatures, forward and backward reference harvesting, and hand searching of targeted journals. An electronic bibliographic search of the literature was conducted to identify qualifying studies. The following online databases were searched, which included both published and unpublished studies, using search terms tailored to each database: Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete, ERIC, National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest Social Science Journals, PsycINFO, PubMed (Medline),Social Sciences Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), CORDIS Library, CrimDoc (Criminology Library of Grey Literature), Grey Literature Database (Canadian), Social Care Online (UK), and the Social Science Research Network eLibrary. To augment these searches, the reference lists of key review studies were backward and forward searched, and graduate students conducted hand searches of the journals Child Development and the Journal of School Psychology. After completing the searches, the 21,693 found citations were uploaded in a Zotero database. Using this software, duplicate citations were removed (i.e., citations found through searches of multiple databases), resulting in a total of 18,294 citations to screen. 2) Abstract Screening: An abstract screening tool was developed, and abstracts were screened using the free Abstrackr software, an open-source, web-based abstract screening tool. Abstracts were screened by all review team members, including the principal and co-principal investigators, research coordinator, graduate and undergraduate research assistants, and professional research assistants. This vast number of studies identified in the screening round required the team to develop unique methods and, ultimately, best practice recommendations for abstract screening large numbers of studies. A total of 3,145 abstracts were kept. 3) Full-Text Retrieval: Team members located full-text PDFs for all abstracts that screened in during the first round of screening, in preparation for a second round of screening using a full-text screening tool. A total of 2,903 full-text PDFs were located for full-text screening and 294 PDFs were not retrievable. 4) Full-text Screening: The full-text PDFs were located and placed in a shared drive folder accessible to all team members. Another screening tool was developed that was similar to the abstract screening tool, but which included more detail relative to the abstract screening tool. One member of the team screened each study. One member of the project leadership team, however, validated each coding decision. A total of 131 reports were included for full-text coding. 5) Full-text coding: The codebook included five primary sections: study-level information, sample characteristics, data collection timing, predictor and outcome constructs, and effect sizes. The study's country of origin, the study's scale, sampling design, and if it used a named dataset were captured for study-level information. For the study's sample, the following was captured: the percentage of males, percentage of white and non-white students, age of the students, and the students' socioeconomic status. Additionally, data collection wave occurrences and how much time occurred between the waves were captured. For each predictor and outcome variable, they coded: how the measure was collected, who collected it, how many items were used, the measure's direction (i.e., whether a larger numerical value indicated a positive or negative meaning), and the measure's reliability. A study was considered "independent" when the sample was unique to a particular set of analyses. In other words, all of the studies that used the Adolescent Health dataset were considered one "study" because the samples overlap across research reports. All related reports, or one independent study, were coded by the same person at approximately the same time. 6) Meta-analyses: The data extraction and effect size estimation processes produced a dataset that allowed meta-analyses to be conducted. The investigators estimated a random-effects model because they assumed the effects derived from a normal distribution and they wished to generalize the findings beyond the included studies.
description: Variables include: Whether or not the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal Whether or not the sample was based in the U.S. Whether the sample was local versus state or national Whether the sample was random versus non-random Socioeconomic status Race Gender Whether the study was funded or non-funded Type of interaction with violence
description: Not applicable.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Empirical research studies were selected based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: 1. Eligible studies included only students in K-12 settings. This criterion was operationalized as the first time-point in the study; in other words, studies that sampled students for the first time beyond high school were excluded. 2. Studies must have measured a school violence variable at the first time point. Violence was broadly defined to encompass multiple types of aggressive acts, including a) physical aggression, specifically fighting or forceful behavior; b) bullying; or c) any other measure of school violence that involved a propensity to commit physical or aggressive acts. 3. Studies must have measured three outcome variable domains, mental health, school performance, and crime and delinquency, which are each composed of more specific variables. 4. Studies must have used a longitudinal design that tracked students over time. The minimum time between data collection time points was five months or one semester. 5. Studies must have quantitatively analyzed the dataset using a multiple regression analysis. Studies that simply reported the longitudinal correlation between school violence and outcome variables were excluded. 6. Studies must have been published in 1990 or later. 7. All types of study reports were included, published or unpublished. 8. Studies must have been published in English, but were not excluded based on country of origin (i.e., all studies were included, regardless of where the study's sample originated).
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Analytic Data DS2: Study Level Data DS3: Citations List
description: All eligible studies published in English in 1990 or later. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: record abstracts