Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ)

Abstract

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ), developed by Ken Rigby in 2002 and further refined in 2006, is a self-report instrument designed to assess the behavioral intentions and reported actions of school personnel when confronting incidents of bullying. It provides a measure of how teachers, counselors, and administrators prefer to intervene, categorizing their responses into five distinct factors, such as working directly with the victim or employing disciplinary measures against the bully. Research utilizing the HBQ, particularly studies by Bauman and colleagues, highlights the diversity of professional responses and their implications for effective school-based anti-bullying programs.

Keywords

Bullying, school personnel, intervention strategies, teacher responses, psychological assessment, Ken Rigby, Sheri Bauman, educational psychology.

Authors

Ken Rigby, Sheri Bauman, Kathleen Hoppa.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ) is to systematically measure the range of strategies utilized or preferred by adults—specifically teachers and other school staff—in response to observed or reported incidents of school bullying. By quantifying these approaches, the instrument allows researchers to analyze the relationship between chosen strategies and professional demographics, training, and school culture.

This instrument helps researchers and policy makers understand the efficacy and prevalence of different intervention strategies employed within educational contexts, allowing for targeted professional development and policy refinement aimed at improving staff competence in managing peer aggression.

Construct

The HBQ measures the construct of professional response styles to bullying behavior. These styles are conceptualized as discrete behavioral domains reflecting different theoretical approaches to managing conflict and supporting students involved in bullying incidents. The questionnaire captures the likelihood of an individual employing specific actions, ranging from direct disciplinary measures to supportive counseling and passive avoidance.

The scale is structured to differentiate between proactive, reactive, and avoidant strategies, providing insight into the complex decision-making processes of school staff when faced with peer victimization. The resultant scores across the factors indicate an individual’s preference for managing the victim, the bully, or the overall social environment.

Validity

Validity for the HBQ is primarily derived from its robust factor structure, which aligns with theoretically distinct approaches to school intervention. The consistent identification of five clear factors across multiple studies (e.g., Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008) provides strong evidence of construct validity, confirming that the items effectively cluster into meaningful psychological and behavioral domains relevant to professional practice.

Reliability

Reliability estimates for the HBQ, reported in research such as that by Bauman et al. (2008) based on US teachers and school counselors, indicate variable but generally acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) for most subscales. The reported reliability coefficients are summarized below:

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

While most subscales demonstrate internal consistency adequate for research purposes, the lower alpha coefficient for the “Disciplining the bully” factor suggests that this subscale may have limited internal consistency or may measure a broader, less cohesive set of punitive behaviors.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis of the HBQ consistently identifies five distinct factors that represent the spectrum of intervention strategies utilized by school personnel. These five factors are instrumental in understanding the multifaceted nature of adult responses to bullying. They include strategies focused on the immediate parties involved, as well as systemic and passive responses.

The five factors identified through empirical analysis are:

• Working with the victim: Strategies focused on empowerment, support, and advice for the target of bullying (e.g., encouraging assertiveness).
• Working with the bully: Strategies involving counseling, guidance, or shared concern directed at changing the perpetrator’s behavior (e.g., seeking to promote self-esteem or responsibility).
• Ignoring the incident: Passive or avoidant responses, including treating the matter lightly or leaving it for others to resolve.
• Enlisting other adults: Referral of the incident to external authorities or support systems, such as school counsellors, administrators, or parents/guardians.
• Disciplining the bully: Direct, authoritative, punitive, or rule-enforcement actions.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Behavioral intentions scale.

Format: 22 items, administered via a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (5) I definitely Would to (1) I definitely would not.

Language Available: Primarily English.

Population Group: School personnel (teachers, school counselors, administrators).

Age Group: Adult professionals.

Population Details: Educational professionals responsible for student welfare and discipline in primary and secondary school settings, often used in studies of professional development and training.

Test Methodology: Respondents are asked to indicate how likely they would be to perform each specified action if they encountered a typical bullying incident.

Keywords

School safety, psychological assessment, teacher efficacy, anti-bullying programs, professional development, educational research, Likert scale.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source (Primary research affiliation associated with Ken Rigby is the University of South Australia).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The HBQ was initially developed in 2002 and formally published in 2006 (Rigby). The instrument is frequently used in academic research and is often available for non-commercial research purposes via the author’s website. The official instrument source is located at: www.kenrigby.net/01a-Questionnaires.

The original PDF discussing the scale’s application in US schools is available here: Bauman and Rigby, 2006 PDF.

Reference’s

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. (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.

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 behaviour 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.”