Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ)

Abstract

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ) is a specialized psychometrics instrument designed to assess the beliefs and preferred intervention strategies of school personnel—including teachers, counselors, and administrators—when addressing incidents of school bullying. Developed by Ken Rigby and Sheri Bauman, the HBQ provides a structured method for examining the multidimensional approaches that educators utilize, ranging from direct disciplinary action and working with the victim to avoiding the incident entirely. The scale employs a 5-point Likert scale format to gauge the likelihood that a respondent would employ a specific strategy.

Keywords

Handling Bullying Questionnaire, HBQ, school bullying, teacher strategies, intervention methods, educational psychology, school counselor, conflict resolution.

Authors

Ken Rigby, Sheri Bauman, Kathleen Hoppa

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ) is to systematically measure the repertoire of responses that school staff members consider appropriate or likely when confronted with a bullying incident. It moves beyond simple self-reporting of behavior by asking respondents to evaluate the extent to which they would enact 22 different intervention strategies.

By quantifying these responses, researchers and school administrators can identify dominant intervention patterns within a school environment, assess the effectiveness of anti-bullying training programs, and highlight discrepancies between preferred professional practice and actual strategic implementation. The instrument is crucial for understanding the professional decision-making process related to bullying prevention and management.

Construct

The HBQ measures five distinct factors, or underlying psychological constructs, which represent fundamentally different approaches to handling bullying incidents. These factors reflect the varied roles and levels of involvement school staff may adopt.

• Working with the victim: Strategies aimed at empowering the victim, encouraging assertiveness, or providing support.
• Working with the bully: Strategies focused on counseling, seeking behavioral change, or improving the bully’s self-esteem.
• Disciplining the bully: Direct, authoritative actions involving punishment, insistence on behavioral change, or contacting parents.
• Enlisting other adults: Strategies involving the referral of the matter to senior administration, school counselors, or the parents of the victim or bully.
• Ignoring the incident: Strategies characterized by minimization, avoidance, or relying on students to resolve the issue independently.

Validity

The validity of the HBQ has been supported through its consistent factor structure across different studies, demonstrating strong evidence for construct validity. The original research by Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008) confirmed that the 22 items reliably clustered into the five hypothesized dimensions of response, which align with established theoretical models of school-based bullying intervention.

While specific detailed analyses like convergent or discriminant validity coefficients are often presented in full scale documentation, the utility of the HBQ lies in its ability to differentiate between teachers who favor punitive methods and those who prefer counseling or preventative measures, suggesting high ecological and pragmatic validity within the educational setting.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, was reported by Bauman et al. (2008) for the five identified factors. The scores indicate generally acceptable to moderate reliability across the subscales, although one factor shows lower consistency:

• Working with the victim: Alpha = .75
• Ignoring the incident: Alpha = .70
• Working with the bully: Alpha = .69
• Enlisting other adults: Alpha = .63
• Disciplining the bully: Alpha = .45

The factor labeled “Disciplining the bully” demonstrates the lowest internal consistency (alpha .45), suggesting that items within this specific dimension may not be measuring the construct as cohesively as the items in the other factors. The remaining subscales exhibit adequate reliability for research purposes in educational psychology.

Factor Analysis

The underlying structure of the HBQ was established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which determined that the 22 response items load onto five distinct factors. These factors represent the fundamental ways that school personnel conceptualize and react to bullying events. This factor structure provides empirical support for classifying intervention strategies into actionable categories.

The identification of these five factors allows researchers to analyze patterns of response beyond a single overall score, offering nuanced insight into professional judgment. For instance, the clear separation between “Disciplining the bully” and “Working with the bully” validates the theoretical distinction between punitive and restorative intervention models employed in schools.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Academic assessment tool

Format: 22 items rated on a 5-point Likert agreement scale.

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: School personnel (Teachers, School Counselors, Administrators).

Age Group: Adults (Professional educators).

Population Details: Specifically designed for those responsible for managing and intervening in incidents of student bullying within primary and secondary educational settings, such as those studied in the US and Australia.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their likelihood of using each strategy, rated from (5) I definitely Would to (1) I definitely would not. The intermediate options are I probably Would, I’m unsure, and I probably would not.

Keywords

School intervention, teacher training, professional development, anti-bullying programs, educational assessment, coping strategies, school climate, psychometrics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence generally directed through academic affiliations of the authors (Ken Rigby, Sheri Bauman).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ) was developed around 2006. The instrument has been made available by the primary author, Ken Rigby, for research and educational use. The instrument can be found at www.kenrigby.net/01a-Questionnaires. Researchers interested in utilizing the scale should consult the authors’ websites or publications for the most current information regarding permissions and potential fees, although it is often freely available for non-commercial academic use.

A related publication detailing the scale’s use can be downloaded here: Bauman and Rigby, 2006 (PDF).

Reference’s

The following academic works document the development, validation, and application of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire:

• Rigby, K. (2006). Handling Bullying Questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.kenrigby.net/
• Rigby, K & Bauman, S (2007) What teachers think should be done about cases of bullying. Professional Educator, ACER, Melbourne.
• Bauman, Sheri., Rigby, Ken & Hoppa, Kathleen. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837-856.
• Rigby, K and Bauman, S (2010) How school personnel tackle cases of bullying: A critical examination. In Shane Jimerson, Susan Swearer and Dorothy Espelage (Eds) The International Handbook of School Bullying, New York: Routledge, 455-468.

Items of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I would insist that the bully “cut it out.”
2. I would treat the matter lightly.
3. I would make sure the bully was suitably punished.
4. I would discuss the matter with my colleagues at school.
5. I would convene a meeting of students‚ including the bully or bullies‚ tell them what was happening‚ and ask them to suggest ways they could help improve the situation.
6. I would tell the victim to stand up to the bully.
7. I would make it clear to the bully that his or her behavior would not be tolerated.
8. I would leave it for someone else to sort out.
9. I would share my concern with the bully about what happened to the victim‚ and seek to get the bully to behave in a more caring and responsible manner.
10. I would let the students sort it out themselves.
11. I would suggest that the victim act more assertively.
12. I would discuss with the bully options from which he or she could make a choice in order to improve the situation.
13. I would ask the school counsellor to intervene.
14. I would refer the matter to an administrator (e.g.‚ principal‚ vice-principal‚ dean).
15. I would contact the victim’s parents or guardians to express my concern about their child’s well-being.
16. I would just tell the kids to “grow up.”
17. I would encourage the victim to show that he or she could not be intimidated.
18. I would ignore it
19. I would help the bully achieve greater self-esteem so that he or she would no longer want to bully anyone.
20. I would insist to the parents(s) or guardian(s) of the bully that the behaviour must stop.
21. I would find the bully something more interesting to do.
22. I would advise the victim to tell the bully to “back off.”