Summary
This paper evaluates the methodological reliability of four large-scale international self-report surveys on school bullying victimisation (EU Kids Online, Global School Health Survey, TIMSS, and HBSC). Whilst individual surveys demonstrate strong internal consistency, agreement between surveys is substantially lower, raising concerns about the validity of cross-national comparisons of bullying victim rates derived from these datasets. The findings suggest that apparent cross-national differences in bullying prevalence may partly reflect measurement artefacts rather than true country-level variation.
UK applicability
The UK participates in several of these survey systems; the findings have implications for UK education policy and research that relies on cross-national benchmarking of bullying victimisation rates, suggesting caution when comparing UK data with other nations using different survey instruments.
Key measures
Internal validity assessed via correlations across frequency criteria, bullying types, age groups, and gender within each survey; external validity assessed via inter-survey agreement on victim rates across countries
Outcomes reported
The study examined internal validity (consistency within surveys) and external validity (agreement across four major international surveys on school bullying victimisation). Authors found high internal consistency within individual surveys but moderate-to-zero agreement between surveys across overlapping countries.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.