مقیاس خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری دوبلین برای معلمان: یک مطالعه روایابی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری تربیتی، گروه روان‌شناسی تربیتی و شخصیت، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه روان‌شناسی کاربردی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه روان‌شناسی تربیتی و شخصیت، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

4 دانشیار، گروه روان‌شناسی کاربردی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

شواهد نشان داده‌اند که توسعة برنامه‌های ضد قلدری برای پیشگیری و مداخلة در پدیدة فزایندة خشونت هم‌سال در مدرسه، با تمرکزی ویژه بر نقش خودکارآمدی معلم همراه است. بی‌شک، با هدف اطلاع از نقش خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری معلم در تعیین اثربخشی مداخلات روانی آموزشی ضد قلدری در مدارس، دسترسی به چهارچوبی نظری و ابزاری اندازه‌گیری الزامی است. بنابراین این پژوهش با هدف تعیین ساختار عاملی و مشخصه‌های روان‌سنجی نسخة فارسی مقیاس خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری دوبلین برای معلمان، انجام شد. در این پژوهش توصیفی ـ همبستگی، 500 معلم دورة اول متوسطه (250 زن و 250 مرد) از مدارس دولتی منطقة 11 شهر تهران با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری دردسترس انتخاب و به مقیاس خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری دوبلین برای معلمان (فیجو و همکاران، 2025)، مقیاس بالندگی (واینر و همکاران، 2010) و پرسش‌نامة سرمایة روان‌شناختی (لوتانز و همکاران، 2007) پاسخ دادند. نتایج روش آماری تحلیل عامل تاییدی از ساختار ‌عاملی با شمول پنج بُعد شناسایی، فوریت، مسئولیت‌پذیری، دانش و گزارش‌دهی در مقیاس خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری برای معلمان، به طور تجربی حمایت کرد. همچنین، همبستگی بین وجوه چندگانة مقیاس خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری با ابعاد سرمایة روان‌شناختی معلمان و بالندگی حرفه‌ای آنها، از روایی ملاکی مقیاس مزبور حمایت کرد. ضرایب همسانی درونی ابعاد مقیاس با استفاده از روش آلفای کرونباخ در دامنة 79/0 تا 89/0 به دست آمد. در مجموع، نتایج این پژوهش با تکرار ساختار پنج‌عاملی مقیاس خودکارآمدی ضد قلدری دوبلین برای معلمان ایرانی، ضمن دفاع از اتقان زیربنای نظری آن، شواهدی قانع‌کننده در حمایت از مقبولیت مشخصه‌های فنی روایی و پایایی نسخة فارسی مقیاس مزبور، فراهم آورد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Dublin Anti‑Bullying Self‑Efficacy Scale for Teachers (DABSE‑T): A Validation Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fahimeh Ahmadi Barcheloei 1
  • Omid Shokri 2
  • Reza Ghorban Jahromi 3
  • Jalil Fathabad 4
1 Ph.D. Student in Educational Psychology, Department of Educational and Personality Psychology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational and Personality Psychology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Evidence has shown that the development of anti-bullying programs to prevent and intervene in the increasing phenomenon of peer violence in schools accompanied by a special focus on the role of teacher self-efficacy. Undoubtedly, in order to understand the role of teacher anti-bullying self-efficacy in determining the effectiveness of anti-bullying psychoeducational interventions in schools, access to a theoretical framework and measurement instruments is essential. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Dublin Anti‑bullying Self‑Efficacy Scale for Teachers (DABSE‑T). In this descriptive survey study, 500 first-year secondary school teachers (250 females and 250 males) from public schools in District 11 of Tehran selected using convenience sampling method and responded to the Dublin Anti‑bullying Self‑Efficacy Scale for Teachers (Feijóo et al., 2025), the Flourishing Scale (Weiner et al., 2010) and the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans et al., 2007). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis statistical method empirically supported a factor structure including five dimensions of identification, urgency, responsibility, knowledge, and reporting in the anti-bullying self-efficacy scale for teachers. Also, the correlation between the dimensions of the anti-bullying self-efficacy scale with the dimensions of teachers' psychological capital and their professional development supported the criterion validity of the scale. The internal consistency coefficients of the scale dimensions obtained using Cronbach's alpha method in the range of 0.79 to 0.89. Overall, the results of this study, by replicating the five-factor structure of the DABSE‑T, while supporting the validity of its underlying theoretical perspective, provided convincing evidence in support of the acceptability of the technical, validity, and reliability characteristics of the Persian version of the scale

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Teacher Self-Efficacy
  • Peer Bullying
  • Social-Ecological Approach
  • Psychometric Properties

مراجع

Aalst, D. A. Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2024). A systematic review on primary school teachers’ characteristics and behaviors in identifying, preventing, and reducing bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 124–137. 10.1007/s42380-022-00145-7
Almasi, F., Shokri, A., & Sadeghi, A. (in press). Validation of the Persian version of the Compassionate Love Scale among teachers. Journal of Clinical and Personality Psychology. [In Persian]
Amini, S., Zakipour, S., & Khodaei, A. (in press). Validation and psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Flourishing Scale in teachers. Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning. [In Persian]
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide: SPSS. (240-260). Chicago: Small Waters Corporation. ISBN1568272642
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Baraldsnes, D., & Caravita, S. C. S. (2025). The relations of teacher use of anti‑bullying components at classroom and individual levels with teacher and school characteristics. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-024-00284-z
Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., & Kollerová, L. (2022). Teachers can make a difference in bullying: Effects of teacher interventions on students’ adoption of bully, victim, bully-victim or defender roles across time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 2312–2327.
Feijóo, S., Kuldas, S., Sargioti, A., Kinahan, A., Heaney, D., Gorman, A., & Norman, J. O. (2025). A test of Dublin Anti‑Bullying Self‑Efficacy Scale for Teachers (DABSE‑T). International Journal of Bullying Prevention, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-024-00246-5
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Drescher, A., Milarsky, T. K., Clements, G., El Sheikh, A. J., Hanebutt, R., Robinson, L. E., Graves, K. A., Valido, A.,  & Espelage, D. L., & Rose, C.  (2024). Teacher identity and bullying—perspectives from teachers during bullying prevention professional development. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 355-369. DOI:10.1007/s42380-024-00241-w
D’Urso, G., Fazzari, E., Marca, L. L., & Simonelli, C. (2023). Teachers and inclusive practices against bullying: A qualitative study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32, 2858–2866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02393
Dyke, N. V., MacDonald, F., Bajayo, R., Nguyen, C. D., Leung, C., & Francis, S. (2025). Development and initial validation of a school self‑assessment tool to measure the extent to which schools are prepared to prevent and respond to cyberbullying and other challenges to the school social environment. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 7, 90–101. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1476021#:~:text=ISSN%3A%20ISSN%2D2523%2D3653
Fassih-Ramandi, Z., Soleimani, M. A., Allen, K. N., & Gorgulu, O., Motalebi, S. A. (2020). Validity and reliability of the Flourishing Scale in a sample of older adults in Iran. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 15, 673–681. DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S251067
Fischer, S. M., John, N., & Bilz, L. (2021). Teachers’ self-efficacy in preventing and intervening in school bullying: A systematic review. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 3, 196–212.
Ghorbani, Z., Shokri, A., Fathabadi, J., & Sharifi, M. (2021). The relationship between teachers’ character strengths and their perceived self-efficacy for moral education of students: The mediating role of teachers’ interpersonal behavior. New Educational Thoughts Quarterly, 17(61), 7–31. 10.22051/jontoe.2021.23233.2433 [In Persian]
Gusfre, K. S., Støen, J., & Fandrem, H. (2023). Bullying by teachers towards students—a scoping review. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 5, 331–347. DOI:10.1007/s42380-022-00131-z
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed., pp. 125–857). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102039
Heydariyehzadeh, B., Shokri, A., Fathabadi, J., Shahidi, Sh., & Akbari, S. (2023). The positive teacher: Developing a conceptual model through grounded theory. Positive Psychology Research Journal, 9(35), 1–32. [In Persian]
Jantzer, V., Neumayer, F., Lerch, S., & Kaess, M. (2025). Development and evaluation of a school‑based bullying prevention program (Bullying&You): study protocol for a cluster randomized trial. Trials, 26, 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08821-x
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd Eds.). New York: Guilford.
Kuldas, S., Sargioti, A., & O’Higgins Norman, J. (2023). Dublin antibullying self-efficacy scales: Bifactor and item response theory models. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(13–14), 8721–8749. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60523 11551 37
Laffan, D. A., Slonje, R., Ledwith, C., O’Reilly, C., & Foody, M. (2024). Scoping bullying and cyberbullying victimisation among a sample of gifted adolescents in Ireland. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00134-w
Liu, L., Huang, Y., Liu, X., & Zhang, L. (2025). Why do teachers intervene? understanding the relationship between subjective norms and teachers’ intervention in real-life bullying incidents. Social Psychology of Education, 28, 8-29. DOI:10.1007/s11218-024-09965-5
Lomas T., Pawelski, J. O., &VanderWeele, T. J. (2024). Flourishing as ‘sustainable well-being’: balance and harmony within and across people, ecosystems, and time. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–16.  DOI:10.1080/17439760.2024.2362435
Luthans, F., Avey, J., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychological capital: A potentially unli-mited competitive resource? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 818-827.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2014). Psychological capital questionnaire: Manual development, applications, & research. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden Inc.
Meyers, L. S., Gamest. G., & Goarin, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research, design and interpretation. Thousand oaks. London. New Deihi, Sage publication. DOI:10.1080/08934215.2011.622237
Mirhashemi Roteh, Z., & Shokri, A. (2018). The relationship between perceived self-efficacy beliefs and teacher–student interpersonal behavior: The mediating role of teacher emotions. Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning, 33(3), 37–52. 10.30473/etl.2019.5405 [In Persian]
Muñoz-Fernández, N., Nappa, M. R., Stefanelli, F., Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2025). A validation study of Teachers’ Responses to Bullying Questionnaire (TRBQ–T) in two large samples of teachers. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, DOI: 10.1007/s42380-025-00315-3
Paljakka, K. (2024). Teachers’ awareness and sensitivity to a bullying incident: A qualitative study. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6, 322–340.
Sargioti, A., Kuldas, S., Foody, M., Viejo Otero, P., Kinahan, A., Canning, C., Heaney, D., & O’Higgins Norman, J. (2022). Dublin anti-bullying self-efficacy models and scales: Development and validation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. [Online ahead of print]. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60522 11271 93.
Shin, H., & Gyeong, S. (2025). When motivation isn’t enough: perceived teacher attitudes, efficacy, and efforts moderate student responses to bullying. BMC Psychology, 13, 609-622. 
Shokri, A., Faridouni, K., & Fathabadi, J. (2025). Developing a conceptual model of the secure teacher: A grounded theory study. Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning, 13(48), 9–20. DOI: 10.30473/etl.2025.72229.4263 [In Persian]
Shokri, A., Mahdavian Mashhadi, P., & Khodaei, A. (2020). Factor structure, reliability, and measurement invariance of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire among Iranian male and female teachers. Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning, 1(23), 21–34. 10.30473/etl.2020.52725.3215 [In Persian]
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A social-ecological framework of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A socialecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 1–12). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. (p.934), Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tan, Q., Zhang, L., Li, W., & Kong, F. (2021). Longitudinal measure­ment invariance of the flourishing scale in adolescents. Current Psychology, 40(11), 5672–5677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01754-z
Van Gils F. E., Colpin, H., Verschueren, K., Demol, K., ten Bokkel, I. M., Menesini, E., & Palladino, B. E. (2022). Teachers’ Responses to Bullying Questionnaire: A validation study in two educational contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 830850. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830850

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار