SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2025 / Sayı: 30

DEVELOPMENT OF CYBER BYSTANDER ROLES AND CYBER SEVERITY SCALE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

SİBER İZLEYİCİ ROLLERİ VE SİBER CİDDİYET ÖLÇEĞİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Adem Peker(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3594-9166
Serkan Cengiz(AĞRI İBRAHİM ÇEÇEN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9070-6338
Zeynep Yazıcı(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3454-5212
Pages
260–279
Publication Date
2025-10-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These results reveal that the CBRS and CSS are valid and reliable measurement tools that can be used with cyber bystander.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to examine the validity and reliability of Cyber Bystander Roles Scale (CBRS) and Cyber Severity Scale (CSS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was conducted in high schools in Erzurum, Türkiye, during 2024.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These results reveal that the CBRS and CSS are valid and reliable measurement tools that can be used with cyber bystander.
🔬Design:İnceleme Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Siber zorbalık · Siber izleyici rolleri · Siber ciddiyet

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the validity and reliability of Cyber Bystander Roles Scale (CBRS) and Cyber Severity Scale (CSS). The research was conducted in high schools in Erzurum, Türkiye, during 2024. The schools included in the study were selected using a random method. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on a sample of 742 students (439 female, 303 male), while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on a sample of 374 students (234 female, 140 male). The psychometric properties of the scales were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), internal consistency coefficients, and item discrimination methods. As a result of EFA, it was determined that CBRS consists of 14 items and 4 sub-dimensions (supporting cyber victims, supporting cyberbullying, exclusion, and opposing cyberbullying) that explain 71.63% of the total variance. CSS, on the other hand, consists of 8 items and a single factor explaining 48.96% of the total variance. CFA was performed to test the validity of the four-factor structure of CBRS and the single-factor structure of CSS based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis. The results confirmed the four-factor structure of CBRS and the single-factor structure of CSS. The Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficients for CBRS's supporting cyber victims, supporting cyber bullies, staying out of it, and standing up to cyberbullying were found to be .81, .86, .80, and .87, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient for CSS was determined to be .73. These results reveal that the CBRS and CSS are valid and reliable measurement tools that can be used with cyber bystander.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı Siber İzleyici Rolleri (SİRÖ) ve Siber Ciddiyet Ölçeği'nin (SCÖ) geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma 2024 yılında Erzurum ilindeki liselerde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya dahil olacak okullar random yöntemiyle belirlenmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizleri işlemleri 742 (439 Kız, 303 Erkek), doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) işlemleri için de 374 kişilik (234 Kız, 140 Erkek) bir örneklem grubu kullanılmıştır. Ölçeklerin psikometrik özellikleri, Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA), Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), iç tutarlılık katsayısı ve madde ayırt ediciliği yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. AFA sonucunda SİRÖ’nün toplam varyansın %71,63’ünü açıklayan 14 madde ve 4 alt boyuttan (siber mağduru destekleme, siber zorbalığı destekleme, dışarıda kalma-tepkisizlik-, siber zorbalığa karşı çıkma) oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. SCÖ ise toplam varyansın %48,96’sını açıklayan 8 madde ve tek bir faktörden meydana gelmektedir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda SİRÖ’nün dört faktörlü ve SCÖ’nün tek faktörlü yapısına ilişkin geçerliğini sınamak için DFA yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar SİRÖ’nün dört ve SCÖ’nün tek faktörlü yapısının doğrulandığını göstermiştir. SİRÖ’nün siber mağduru destekleme, siber zorbayı destekleme, dışarıda kalma-tepkisizlik-, siber zorbalığa karşı çıkma Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayıları sırasıyla .81, .86, .80 ve .87 olarak bulunmuştur. SCÖ’nün Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı .73 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar SİRÖ ve SCÖ’nün siber izleyicilerde kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Peker, A., Cengiz, S., Yazıcı, Z. (2025). DEVELOPMENT OF CYBER BYSTANDER ROLES AND CYBER SEVERITY SCALE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 30, 260–279. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1700442

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (72)

  1. Akca, E.B., & Sayımer, İ. (2017). Siber zorbalık kavramı, türleri ve ilişkili olduğu faktörler: Mevcut araştırmalar üzerinden bir değerlendirme. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 8(30), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2017.5.001.x
  2. Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036
  3. Bauman, S., & Newman, M. L. (2013). Testing assumptions about cyberbullying: Perceived distress associated with acts of conventional and cyber bullying, Psychology of Violence, 3, 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029867
  4. Beavon, E., Jenkins, L., Bradley, M., & Verma, K. (2024). Understanding adolescents’ bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Contemporary School Psychology, 28(2), 270-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00437-1 Betancourt, J. A., Cerón, C. A., & Ramírez Marroquín, A. (2013). Matoneo virtual en lasredes sociales de amistad en internet. Revista Magistro, 7, 151-178.
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (22. bs).Pegem Akademi.
  6. Camacho, S., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2018). Cyberbullying impacts on victims’ satisfaction with information and communication technologies: The role of perceived cyberbullying severity. Information & Management, 55(4), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.11.004
  7. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  8. Chen, L. M., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2017). Perceived severity of cyberbullying behaviour: Differences between genders, grades and participant roles, Educational Psychology, 37(5), 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1202898
  9. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
  10. Chu, X. (2020). The bystander effect in cyberbullying-a study based on network groups. Doctoral dissertation. Central China Normal University in Chinese.
  11. Cui, K., Xie, H., & Peng, H. (2023). How past cyber victimization affects bystanders’ position taking in offline bullying situations: A moderated mediation model of self-concept and social support. School Mental Health, 15(2), 416-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09557-8
  12. Cui, K. J., & To, S. M. (2021). School climate, bystanders’ responses, and bullying perpetration in the context of rural-to-urban migration in China. Deviant Behavior, 42(11), 1416-1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1752601
  13. DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Deboutte, G.,. & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2018). Psychometric data of a questionnaire to measure cyberbullying bystander behavior and its behavioral determinants among adolescents. Data in Brief, 18, 1588-1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.087
  14. DeSmet, A., Deforche, B., Hublet, A., Tanghe, A., Stremersch, E., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Traditional and cyberbullying victimization as correlates of psychosocial distress and barriers to a healthy lifestyle among severely obese adolescents–a matched case-control study on prevalence and results from a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-22
  15. Dillon, K. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Unresponsive or un-noticed? Cyberbystander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 144-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.009
  16. Domínguez-Hernandez, F., Bonell, L., & Martínez-Gonzalez, A. (2018). A systematic literature review of factors that moderate bystanders’ actions in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-1.
  17. Englander, E. (2021). 3.5 social and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of the American Academy Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 60, S147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.09.039
  18. Eraslan-Çapan, B., Bakioğlu, F., & Kirteke, S. (2020). Siber zorbalık ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması: Psikometrik özellikleri. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 21(1), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.57705 Evangelio, C., Rodríguez-Gonz´alez, P., Fern´ andez-Río, J., & Gonzalez-Villora, S. (2022). Cyberbullying in elementary and middle school students: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 176(104356). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104356
  19. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS (4th ed). Sage Publications.
  20. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466-491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
  21. George, D. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.
  22. Gini, G., Thornberg, R., & Pozzoli, T. (2020). Individual moral disengagement and bystander behavior in bullying: The role of moral distress and collective moral disengagement. Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000223
  23. Giumetti, G. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (2022). Cyberbullying via social media and well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101314
  24. Gürbüz, S. (2021). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (2. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  25. Henares-Montiel, J., V., Benítez-Hidalgo, I., Ruiz-Pérez, G., Pastor-Moreno, M., & Rodríguez-Barranco. M. (2022). Cyberbullying and associated factors in member countries of the european union: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with representative population samples. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7364. (Article 12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127364.
  26. Hong, Y. J., & Lee, K. (2022). Adolescent bystanders’ moral emotions in cyberbullying. School Psychology İnternational, 43(3), 271-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343221088186
  27. Huang, C. L., Alimu, Y., & Yang, S. C. (2024). Factors influencing ethnic minority students' helping behavior in cyberbullying: perceived severity of cyberbullying from various perspectives, the online disinhibition effect, and parental online discipline style. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(3), 1889-1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00738-w
  28. Huang, C. L., Zhang, S., & Yang, S. C. (2020). How students react to different cyberbullying events: Past experience, judgment, perceived seriousness, helping behavior and the effect of online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 110. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.chb.2020.106338. Article 106338.
  29. Islam, M. I., Yunus, F. M., Kabir, E., & Khanam, R. (2021). Evaluating risk and protective factors for suicidality and self-harm in Australian adolescents with traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimizations. American Journal of Health Promotion. 36(1), 73-83 https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211034105
  30. Kalender, M. K., Bulu, Ş., & Keser, H. (2018). Siber zorbalik tehlike düzeyi ölçeğinin ortaokul ve lise formlarinin geliştirilmesi, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(2), 569-587. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.389857
  31. Kayış, A. (2014). Güvenirlik analizi. Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri içinde (s. 404-409) içinde. Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  32. Kim, Y. (2021). Understanding the bystander audience in online incivility encounters: Conceptual issues and future research questions. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2934-2943). ScholarSpace. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.357
  33. Kline, B. R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed). The Guilford Press. Koehler, C., & Weber, M. (2018). Do I really need to help?!” Perceived severity of cyberbullying, victim blaming, and bystanders’ willingness to help the victim. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-4.
  34. Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & McCord, A. (2019). A development approach to cyberbully ing: Prevalence and protective. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 45, 20-32. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009
  35. Kozubal, M., Szuster, A., & Barli´ nska, J. (2019). Cyberbystanders, affective empathy and social norms. Studia Psychologica, 61(2), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.21909/ sp.2019.02.777
  36. Leung, A. N. M. (2021). To help or not to help: Intervening in cyberbullying among Chinese cyber-bystanders. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 483250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.483250
  37. Leung, A., Wong, N., & Farver, J. (2018). You are what you read: The belief systems of cyber-bystanders on social networking sites. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00365. Li, S., Gong, N., Lin, Y., Huang, F., Zhang, S., & Yu, G. (2025). School climate and cyberbullying victimization: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 169, 108064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.108064
  38. Macaulay, P.; Betts, L.; Stiller, J.; Kellezi, B. (2022). Bystander responses to cyberbullying: The role of perceived severity, publicity, anonymity, type of cyberbullying, and victim response. Computers in Human Behavior. 131, 1-13 107238
  39. Maurya, C., Muhammad, T., Dhillon, P., & Maurya, P. (2022). The effects of cyberbullying victimization on depression and suicidal ideation among adolescents and young adults: A three year cohort study from India. BMC Psychiatry 22, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04238-x
  40. Merlici, I.A., & Maftei, A. (2025). The moral maze of cyberbullying: navigating the roles of victims, bystanders, and perpetrators in the cycle of harm, Deviant Behavior, 46(1),24-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2024.2327563
  41. Nochaiwong, S., Ruengorn, C., Thavorn, K., Hutton, B., Awiphan, R., Phosuya, C., et al. (2021). Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10173 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89700-8
  42. Obermaier, M., Fawzi, N., & Koch, T. (2016). Bystanding or standing by? How the number of bystanders affects the intention to intervene in cyberbullying, New Media & Society, 18(8), 1491-1507, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814563519
  43. Olenik-Shemesh, D., T. Heiman, and S. Eden. 2017. Bystanders’ behavior in cyberbullying episodes: Active and passive patterns in the context of personal–socio-emotional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515585531.
  44. Ortuno-Sierra, J., Perez-Albeniz, A., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Solbes-Canales, I., & Lucas-Molina, B. (2022). Bullying, cyberbullying and mental health: The role of student connectedness as a school protective factor. Psychosocial Intervention, 31(1), 33-41.
  45. Özdemir, E. Z., & Bektaş, M. (2021). Siber zorbalık üçgeni ölçeği: geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Sakarya Tıp Dergisi, 11(3), 583-592. https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.823355
  46. Palladino, B. E., Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Ucanok, Z.,. & Scheithauer, H. (2017). Perceived severity of cyberbullying: Differences and similarities across four countries, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01524
  47. Peker, A., Kars, M.P., & Taşgın, A. (2024). Siber zorbalığa seyirci müdahale ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.31463/aicusbed.1426691
  48. Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystand ing behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(6), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9
  49. Rong, K., Chu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Qualitative analyses on the classification model of bystander behavior in cyberbullying. Frontiers in Psychology. 14, 1152331. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1152331
  50. Rudnicki, K., Vandebosch, H., Voué, P., & Poels, K. (2022). Systematic review of determinants and consequences of bystander interventions in online hate and cyberbullying among adults. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(5), 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2027013
  51. Sarmiento, A., & Leguizamón, D. (2016). Adaptación y validación del instrumento de cyberbullying escolar (ICIB) en universitarios (Master thesis). Bogotá: Konrad Lorenz Fundación Universitaria.
  52. Sarmiento, A., Herrera-López, M., & Zych, I. (2019). Is cyberbullying a group process? Online and offline bystanders of cyberbullying act as defenders, reinforcers and outsiders. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 328-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.037
  53. Skilbred-Fjeld, S., Reme, S. E., & Mossige, S. (2020). Cyberbullying involvement and mental health problems among late adolescents. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 14(1), 1-20.
  54. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  55. Seo, M. (2008). Participation in bullying: Bystanders' characteristics and role behaviors. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 29(5), 79-96.
  56. Song, J., & Oh, I. (2018). Factors influencing bystanders' behavioral reactions in cyberbullying situations. Computer in Human Behavior, 78, 273-282. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.chb.2017.10.008.
  57. Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013a). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
  58. Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013b). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 739-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
  59. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı. (Çev. Ed. Mustafa Baloğlu). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  60. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. (4. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Thompson, J. D., & Cover, R. (2021). Digital hostility, internet pile-ons and shaming: A case study. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 28(6), 1770-1782. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211030461
  61. Van Noorden, T. H. J., Bukowski, W. M., Haselager, G. J. T., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016).
  62. Disentangling the frequency and severity of bullying and victimization in the association with empathy. Social Development, 25(1), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12133
  63. Wang, S. (2021). Standing up or standing by: Bystander intervention in cyberbullying on social media. New Media & Society, 23(6), 1379-1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820902541
  64. Wang, S., & Kim, K. J. (2021). Effects of victimization experience, gender, and empathic distress on bystanders’ intervening behavior in cyberbullying. The Social Science Journal, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1861826
  65. Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysisand recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
  66. World Health Organization. (2024). One in six school-aged children experiences cyberbullying, finds new WHO/Europe study. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/27-03 2024-one-in-six-school-aged-children-experiences cyberbullying--finds-new-who-europe-study.
  67. Wright, M. F., & Wachs, S. (2023). Adolescents’ emotional reactions for not intervening in cyberbullying as moderators in the longitudinal association between witnessing cyberbullying and health issues. Current Psychology, 42(22), 19378-19385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03773-w
  68. Yun, H. Y. (2020). New approaches to defender and outsider roles in school bullying. Child Development, 91(4), e814-e832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13312
  69. Zhu, C., Huang, S., Evans, R., & Zhang, W. (2021). Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: A comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontiers in Public Health, 9,1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909
  70. Zhao, Y., Chu, X., & Rong, K. (2023). Cyberbullying experience and bystander behavior in cyberbullying incidents: The serial mediating roles of perceived incident severity and empathy. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107484
  71. DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Deboutte, G.,. & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2018). Psychometric data of a questionnaire to measure cyberbullying bystander behavior and its behavioral determinants among adolescents. Data in Brief, 18, 1588-1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.087
  72. Palladino, B. E., Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Ucanok, Z.,. & Scheithauer, H. (2017). Perceived severity of cyberbullying: Differences and similarities across four countries, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01524